From: Eliza T. Dresang <edresang>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:57:49 -0500

I'm attaching this to the comments of two of the courageous school librarians about whom I'm speaking in the following comment that I just sent to the New York Times public editor.

Dear Public Editor:

The following appeared on an electronic children's literature discussion group to which I belong.

>>Just as a practical note, one way to respond to the slanted and
>>sensational tone
>>of the New York Times story would be to write to the public editor:
>>
>>public at nytimes.com
>>
>>It's his job to read and investigate just such reader complaints.
>>If he gets enough mail about this story, he might even do a column on it.
>>
>>Liz McCausland
>mccausland at shaw.ca


Assuming this is true, I am asking you to investigate what I consider the 'slanted and sensational tone' of the New York Times article,
"With Single Word, a Children's Book Stirs a Battle" by reporter Julie Bosman.

I am currently a named professor at the Florida State University College of Information where I teach graduate students who are studying to be librarians. The majority of my students are studying to become school librarians, where they are taught it is their professional responsibility to fight censorship and that they are not alone in doing so --there is a huge community of librarians standing behind them and beside them, past and present and I hope future.

Before joining the faculty at FSU, I was district director for the school libraries in Madison, Wisconsin for 16 years, where there were complaints about books but never a successful attempt to remove a book from the shelves, and before that an elementary school librarian in Madison and a public children's librarian in Atlanta and Los Angeles. I am co-author of a book (with John S. Simmons) called
"School Censorship in the 21st Century: A Guide for Teachers and Librarians and author of a recently published article in the Library Quarterly (April 2006) called "Intellectual Freedom and Libraries: Complexity and Change in the Twenty-First-Century Digital Environment. . I became a librarian because I wanted to join the support of my profession of intellectual freedom (first amendment rights)

So here are my thoughts on 'slanted and sensational.'

SLANTED:

Ms. Bosman quotes only school librarians who state they would censor this book, a total of four from different parts of the country with one quoted that "she has heard from dozens of librarians who agreed with her stance." (Heresay at the best!) Among the 16,000 school librarians on LM_Net, there are definitely those who defend intellectual freedom and eschew censorship, but the 'slant' was to quote only those who seem to be for it.

Moreover, I happen to know Ms. Scales whom she quotes. Ms. Scales was, indeed, a former Newbery Chair, but Ms. Bosman does not mention the many, many years in which Ms Scales was a middle school librarian nor the nationally-recognized and extremely successful program that she had with middle school parents and children to discuss controversial books (not ban them) and to promote understanding of first amendment rights of youth. She does not mention the censorship battles that she successfully fought as a school librarian. Slanted indeed!

Ms. Bosman mentioned that 'some school officials have tried to ban Harry Potter books from schools, saying that they implicitly endorse witchcraft and Satanism.

But she fails to mention the 'only' court case involving the Harry Potter books "Counts v. Cedarville School District (2003)"-- where the School Board tried to require students to get written permission to read Harry Potter books. Judge Hendren ruled that the school district must return the books to its library shelves and place no unusual restriction on their circulation. A fourth-grade girl and her parents brought the suit against the school board's attempt to restrict circulation of Harry Potter books. Nor does she mention the courageous youth in Zeeland, Michigan who successfully fought the banning of Harry Potter books. Nor does she mention the failure, worldwide, of attempts to censor these books. 'Slanted' indeed.

Nor does Ms. Bosman mention that the incident of book censorship has steadily declined (by almost 30 %) over the past decade according to statistics collected by the American Library Association.

SENSATIONAL:

Ms. Bosman states that there have been comments on many blogs and electronic mailing lists where "school librarians took sides." That paragraph is not sensational.

But the paragraph preceding it "The inclusion of the word has shocked some school librarians, who have pledged to ban the book from elementary school students," and the paragraph following it, "This book included what I call a Howard Stern type shock treatment. . . " definitely are sensational. This is not a balanced or objective reporting of the sides that librarians are taking (mentioned in the objective paragraph) -- it is a reporting of the controversy in a purposefully sensational manner.

Never once is it suggested what all 'library school' students are taught, i.e., that books are considered for their whole, not for one part. Nowhere is it mentioned what these quoted librarians (or any others) think about the book as a whole, what its merits are or are not. Did the Newbery Committee recognized it a the most distinguished literature for children published last year because they wanted to shock? The author defends the book (who is by the way a librarian) but that is not comparable to the librarians attacking it. All we know from reading the article is the 'sensational' part of it for librarians.

And the quote from librarian Nilsson at the end "You won't find men's genitalia in quality literature." "At least not for children," she added. Ms Bosman picks this 'sensational' quote without note that in fact it is a dog's genitalia of which there is a mention, not a man's.

All in all this article is completely unworthy of a trusted national newspaper; it is derogatory and undermining to the many courageous school and other librarians who fight the battles against censorship every day. Children deserve to read the book chosen best of the year and I can guarantee none -- not even one -- will be corrupted by doing so. As J.K. Rowling has said, "Show me one child who has learned to be a witch or wizard from my books." I hope your investigation will lead to a more balanced follow-up (on the front page) as well as an admonition for Ms. Bosman to conduct balanced inquiry and reporting in the future (rather than being 'sucked into' the slanted and the sensational.' )

  Thanks

Eliza T. Dresang



At 1:13 PM -0500 2/19/07, Monica Edinger wrote:
>Linnea,
>
>Good luck! In the best of all possible worlds I'd do what you have
>planned. but I have to admit I'm not as confident that my kids would
>all just wait to find out along with Lucky. I'm more a preemptive
>strike sort of teacher to avoid the chance of even one kid going off
>on his/her own to look it up on a dictionary, deciding it was indeed
>"dirty", telling another (in a whisper of course), and so on. I'm
>more comfortable getting in there quickly with a definition so there
>is no chance of things going off kilter. I have to say that way I
>could relax, enjoy reading the book to them, and I'm sure they'd still
>appreciate the end (maybe even more knowing the definition before
>Lucky).
>
>Monica
>
>On 2/19/07, Linnea Hendrickson <Lhendr at unm.edu> wrote:
>> I was asked by a relative what I thought about the Lucky controversy
>> before I'd finished reading the book. Now that I've finished reading,
>> and loving it, I think the most pertinent remark in the Times article is
>> Pat Scales' comment, "'The people who are reacting to that word are not
>> reading the book as a whole,' she said. 'That's what censors do -- they
>> pick out words and don't look at the total merit of the book.'"
>>
>> Before I had finished reading, when I thought about how I'd read the
>> beginning to a group of third or 4th graders, which I'll probably do
>> this week, I thought about how I'd handle it. However, since finishing
>> the book, I've changed my mind about my strategy. I originally thought
>> I would see if a hand shot up requesting a definition. Then, I'd ask if
> > anyone knew .. and if not, I'd come up with a definition myself, and be
>> prepared for giggles and/ or gasps -- which I would receive, with, as
>> Monica describes it, a "grow-up sort of look." (These are kids who
>> find the word "underwear" in any context uproariously funny.) Since I
>> always discuss censorship during Banned Books Week, I have had lots of
>> experience giving "the look" and squelching gasps and giggles. Like
>> Monica, I prefer to read with a minimum of interruption and
>> explanation. In addition, like many of those who are censoring the
>> book, I'd prefer not to have to engage in a vocabulary or anatomy
>> discussion..
>>
>> However, having finished the book, I realize that Lucky does not know
>> the meaning of the word throughout the book, and when Brigitte explains
>> it to her so gently and beautifully at the end, it is a powerful and
>> tender moment that makes it clear that the author's choice of words was
>> not at all accidental, and that she was not trying "sneak in" anything
>> -- as though anyone would choose the first page of a book as a place to
>> sneak! In fact, the word and Brigitte's definition has everything to do
>> with one of the book's powerful themes of the absent father and the
>> meaning of parenting. I think when I read the opening chapter this
>> week, if the children ask, I will simply say that if they want to find
>> out what the word means they will have to read to the end of the book --
>> or they can turn to the dictionary if they can't wait. Or, I may break
>> down and give them a hint.
>>
>> Be brave, librarians and teachers. If I can handle this, so can you.
>>
>> --
>> Linnea
>>
>> Linnea Hendrickson
>> Albuquerque, NM
>> Lhendr at unm.edu
>> http://www.unm.edu/~lhendr
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CCBC-Net mailing list
>> CCBC-Net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu
>> Visit this link to read archives or to unsubscribe...
>> http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccbc-net
>>
>
>
>--
>Monica Edinger
>The Dalton School
>New York NY
>monicaedinger at gmail.com
>my blog educating alice is at http://medinger.wordpress.com
>_______________________________________________
>CCBC-Net mailing list
>CCBC-Net at ccbc.education.wisc.edu
>Visit this link to read archives or to unsubscribe...
>http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/ccbc-net

-- 
Eliza T. Dresang
Eliza Atkins Gleason Professor
College of Information
Florida State University 32306-2100
Phone:  850 644 5877
FAX:  850 644 9763

Received on Mon 19 Feb 2007 06:57:49 PM CST