From: Burgess, Francesca <F.Burgess_at_BrooklynPublicLibrary.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:30:38 -0400

Hi,

At Brooklyn Public Library, we have CLAUDETTE COLVIN: TWICE TOWARD JUSTICE in both the Juvenile and Young Adult collections. It has been circulating well in the both collections.

In our system, children with a "juvenile restricted" card are only allowed to borrow juvenile materials. When children turn 13, their card type changes to Young Adult.

By holding CLAUDETTE COLVIN in both the Juvenile and Young Adult collections, children younger than 13 who are interested in this title have the freedom to borrow it. They should be allowed the choice to borrow it on their own, and if we deny them that choice, it is a form of censorship.

In this thread, another list member pointed out that children will naturally steer away from books that are too advanced for them. I don't think it's necessary for us to make this choice for them.

The question is, where do we draw the line in determining what issues are too "mature" or "disturbing" for our children to read? What does this say about us - whether it is we as parents and/or professionals who are uncomfortable contemplating issues of racism, sexism, and classism?

It is very ironic that in Montgomery, Alabama, the location in which the historic events covered by this title occurred, this title is held in the Juvenile collection.

What I found most disturbing about the article is that the librarian removed this title from the Juvenile collection at the insistence of one parent. Don't they have a library policy for the re-consideration of library materials?

Francesca Burgess

Francesca Burgess Children's Materials Selector Office of Materials Selection Brooklyn Public Library 10 Grand Army Plaza Brooklyn, NY 11238 Phone: 718.230.2748 Fax: 718. 230-2097 f.burgess_at_brooklynpubliclibrary.org


________________________________



From: Emme Guest
 Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:07 PM Cc: CCBC Network Subject: RE:
 Professional Responsibility

I am not a book banner. Or an advocate for censoring books. My mother read me To Kill a Mocking Bird when I was six or seven (and I loved it!). But, I feel that that so often librarians become defensive about their collections and parents so protective of their children, that we create an environment where meaningful conversations between parents and librarians are impossible. And - shouldn't we, instead, be trying to find ways connect with parents and utilize their opinions and knowledge?

Parents may not technically be professionals, but if we encourage them to be the professionals on what is best for their children - shouldn't we value, respect and be willing to have open conversations with them about the books their children are reading? Shouldn't that be part of our professional responsibilities?

Of course, I am not advocating that we pull books from the shelves that parents oppose. But perhaps a book like Claudette Colvin: Twice Towards Justice will reach more readers in the Young Adult section (School Library Journal and Booklist list the book as most appropriate for grades 6 - 12)? Couldn't what Jennifer Donovan did be viewed in a more positive light? And, isn't it possible (because librarians can't read every single book they order for the collection) that there are other books like this? Books that librarians should at least consider re-classing? Or at the very least, shouldn't we be more open to hearing parents opinions (even if we venomously disagree) simple because they make up part of the community we serve?

I am always happy to listen to great book recommendations from parents (in fact, I think parents should be encourage to share with librarians the books they thought were great for their children), so shouldn't I also be willing to consider their opinions regarding books they didn't think were good for their children? And, aren't those ridiculous book challenges (And Tango Meets Three, TTYL, etc), at the very least, a little slice of insight into the community served?

I can't imagine ever pulling a book from the shelves and believe strongly in the freedom to choose what we read (from a collection diverse with choices), but I also don't think Jennifer Donovan (and other parents like her) should be viewed as the enemy. In fact, I think in an ideal library world there would be more thoughtful and involved parents out there - parents who were willing to talk openly (and respectfully) about their opinions, and perhaps (ultimately) even help guide librarians in their professional decisions ...

Emme

Youth Services Associate

From: sully_at_sully-writer.com
 Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 7:56 AM To: maia_at_littlefolktales.org Cc: CCBC Network Subject: RE:
 Professional Responsibility

Maia,

In Jennifer Donovan's blog post, she writes:

"I told her
 it was a good book that explained the realities of race relations at that time in history through the eyes of one teen who made a real stand, but that I was concerned about some of the content. She asked if it would be better in the Young Adult section, and I said definitely. That was the end of the discussion, and I think that we were both pleased with the outcome."

She also says: "I did not want the book removed from circulation, but I would not want a 4th grader researching civil rights to come across it either."

It reads to me like having the book removed from the children's collection to the YA collection was exactly what she wanted.

Edward T. Sullivan, Rogue Librarian Author, The Ultimate Weapon: The Race to Develop the Atomic Bomb (Holiday House, 2007) Visit my web site, http://www.sully-writer.com Visit my blog, Rogue Librarian: All About Books and Reading http://sullywriter.wordpress.com Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/sullywriter


-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re:
 Professional Responsibilty From: Maia Cheli-Colando Date: Sun, September 26, 2010 9:03 pm To: sully_at_sully-writer.com Cc: CCBC Network

Ed, Ms. Donovan didn't make a decision for anyone else's children. She shared her opinion with the librarian. What the librarian then chose to do -- or why -- wasn't revealed in the post. So you probably can hold your stomach for now. :)

Gods help our librarians if they are each supposed to read every book and be alerted and sensitive to every issue sans input from their audience.

I admit I am confused by what I sense beneath these conversations: an idea that (a) parents are dangers not to be trusted and (b) teachers and librarians are astute, well-informed literary founts. Neither absolute has held true in my experience as a child, as an adult, as a teacher, or as a parent. Generally, I would say that while I was growing up my parents were both better informed and more liberal than my teachers. It's a sad comment, but I can't reflect substantively on the librarians of my youth - more often they were gatekeepers (you can't visit *that* section yet) than the reverse. As an adult, I've now known fantastic librarians and poor librarians, fantastic teachers and poor teachers. (Teachers in training I knew at university twelve years ago were largely opposed to examining children's literature with any critical eye -- "you are ruining the story for me" was a common theme. They were decent people, and likely great at many teacherly things... but I wouldn't want them to be choosing books for my
 classroom.)

And too, educators are predominantly white, middle-class (what's left of it) folk. Many begin completely blind to the suffering of students whose experiences don't match their own. Good teachers learn over time... but how many 23 year olds have a strong grasp on their own identity, let alone the experiences of others? And yet, we don't want the input of parents to enrich our teachers' (and librarians') understanding? This makes no sense to me.

There is a very peculiar anti-teacher, anti-public school sentiment running through the country these days. Many things contribute to this (the Republican party talking points being the largest single donor)... but I wonder if some people are so easily swung against schools because of a sense of arrogance on the part of public educators? The sense that "behind these doors, you {families} hold no sway" while simultaneously, the schools are encroaching into every hour of our children's waking lives?

My gut feeling is that until this most critical act -- the teaching of our children -- becomes a frank partnership filled with respect for all parties (and their cultures, religions, genders, ancestries) involved, parents are going to resent schools, capitalists are going to exploit this resentment, educators are going to attempt to maintain control, and kids are going to get simultaneously burned out and ignored. It seems to me that every act of open conversation around books is a bridge that needs to be built, a web-line that needs to be thrown.

If you had a choice between a book - any single given book - and a relationship between some of the most important people in a child's life, how many books are so powerful and important that they should absolutely override the chance for those important people to converse safely in the interests of the child? I'm not saying we should ban books (to this day I find that a vague and confusing term)... I'm saying that teachers and librarians need to get off any high horses they may be riding (those who are), and that parents need to meet them halfway with faith in their integrity and goodwill. We need to talk, and to believe that everyone has something worth sharing, and that we will be heard.

All of which is a bit beside the point of Megan's original question, but as we've crossed into the eternal arguments of censorship, I thought the ground should be addressed. (Hello ground, said she. )

Cheers, Maia

-- Maia Cheli-Colando Arcata, Humboldt Bay, California -- blogging at http://www.littlefolktales.org/wordpress -- -- or drop in on Facebook! --

---

Received on Mon 27 Sep 2010 01:30:38 PM CDT