CCBC-Net Archives
[CCBC-Net] Words, words, words
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: James Elliott <j_c_elliott>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:36:43 -0500
Nicely said, Leslie.
However, are WE expected to be guides? I was told quite clearly in Library School that we are NOT to be 'in loco parentis' as librarians, but that parents were to be the responsible party in what their children checks out.
True, if a parent or child asks us for recommendations, we can suggest based on their expressed interests, and I would rather do this with the parent present, but the fact remains that parents all too often view the children's section of the library as a place where they can drop off their children or shoo them to while they (parents) head to the computers for a nice game of solitaire or to check up on the latest 'hotties' to enter the prison system
(I speak from experience! and yes, I know -- not all parents do this thank goodness!).
How far DO we go in these matters in regard to a books contents? There is no way we, as librarians, can be expected to know each book intimately, even though our reading levels are impressive, this would be impossible.
This is an area where I am torn two ways: We do have to take challenges seriously, and we HAVE to admit that some of these challenges might, just possibly, be legit! Yet, we can't just take every book off the shelves because someone complains.
I, for one, do not belong to the 'school' that says all challenges are to be treated as frivilous, or the result of closed minds, or just 'another right-winger trying to take my freedom away'. Concerned parents NEED to have a voice, too, after all, don't they also pay the taxes that keep our doors open?
Anyway, these are just some thoughts of mine on the subject.
Jim
>From: "Leslie Sharbel" <Lsharbel at charter.net>
>To: <Scgbooks at aol.com>, <ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu>
>Subject: Re: [CCBC-Net] Words, words, words
>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:55:33 -0600
>
>"in this day and age of exposure of (to?) anything and everything in books,
>film, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet..."
>
>Have you stopped to think how we got to this point in the first place?
>That
>the reason we are exposed to so much in books, magazines, etc, is because
>we
>didn't make any objection to these things? We just let whomever express
>themselves, no matter how grusome, how violent, how sexual, all in the name
>of free expression? No matter what the consequences? Just because we have
>the right to free speech does not mean we have to be rude.
>
>The reason we don't use those words (and I won't use it here) in polite
>conversation, or children's books, is not because we are ashamed of our
>body
>parts, or are afraid to let our children use correct anatomical terms, or
>any other psycho-babble reason. It is because we do not want to make the
>other person uncomfortable. Isn't that what manners are all about? Being
>considerate of others' feelings, and not using words or actions that we
>think might make them uncomfortable? Or is a polite society no longer
>important? There is a reason we call them "private parts". It is because
>they are private.
>
>"put the book on the shelf and let the children decide"????? Are we not to
>guide our children in any way? Provide things in a time that is
>age-appropriate? If this word, and words like it, keep appearing in
>children's books, how are they ever going to learn what is "polite
>conversation"? Or do we care?
>Is that Rome I smell burning?
>
>Lsharbel
>
>
Received on Sun 18 Feb 2007 08:36:43 PM CST
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:36:43 -0500
Nicely said, Leslie.
However, are WE expected to be guides? I was told quite clearly in Library School that we are NOT to be 'in loco parentis' as librarians, but that parents were to be the responsible party in what their children checks out.
True, if a parent or child asks us for recommendations, we can suggest based on their expressed interests, and I would rather do this with the parent present, but the fact remains that parents all too often view the children's section of the library as a place where they can drop off their children or shoo them to while they (parents) head to the computers for a nice game of solitaire or to check up on the latest 'hotties' to enter the prison system
(I speak from experience! and yes, I know -- not all parents do this thank goodness!).
How far DO we go in these matters in regard to a books contents? There is no way we, as librarians, can be expected to know each book intimately, even though our reading levels are impressive, this would be impossible.
This is an area where I am torn two ways: We do have to take challenges seriously, and we HAVE to admit that some of these challenges might, just possibly, be legit! Yet, we can't just take every book off the shelves because someone complains.
I, for one, do not belong to the 'school' that says all challenges are to be treated as frivilous, or the result of closed minds, or just 'another right-winger trying to take my freedom away'. Concerned parents NEED to have a voice, too, after all, don't they also pay the taxes that keep our doors open?
Anyway, these are just some thoughts of mine on the subject.
Jim
>From: "Leslie Sharbel" <Lsharbel at charter.net>
>To: <Scgbooks at aol.com>, <ccbc-net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu>
>Subject: Re: [CCBC-Net] Words, words, words
>Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 18:55:33 -0600
>
>"in this day and age of exposure of (to?) anything and everything in books,
>film, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet..."
>
>Have you stopped to think how we got to this point in the first place?
>That
>the reason we are exposed to so much in books, magazines, etc, is because
>we
>didn't make any objection to these things? We just let whomever express
>themselves, no matter how grusome, how violent, how sexual, all in the name
>of free expression? No matter what the consequences? Just because we have
>the right to free speech does not mean we have to be rude.
>
>The reason we don't use those words (and I won't use it here) in polite
>conversation, or children's books, is not because we are ashamed of our
>body
>parts, or are afraid to let our children use correct anatomical terms, or
>any other psycho-babble reason. It is because we do not want to make the
>other person uncomfortable. Isn't that what manners are all about? Being
>considerate of others' feelings, and not using words or actions that we
>think might make them uncomfortable? Or is a polite society no longer
>important? There is a reason we call them "private parts". It is because
>they are private.
>
>"put the book on the shelf and let the children decide"????? Are we not to
>guide our children in any way? Provide things in a time that is
>age-appropriate? If this word, and words like it, keep appearing in
>children's books, how are they ever going to learn what is "polite
>conversation"? Or do we care?
>Is that Rome I smell burning?
>
>Lsharbel
>
>
Received on Sun 18 Feb 2007 08:36:43 PM CST
