Freedom to Read Due June 20th
Visit ALA.org read over the Freedom to Read Statement and Library Bill of Rights.
How will this influence your position as a library media specialist. Please include a quote, comment, and a question.
htttp://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/ftrstatement/freedomreadstatement.cfm
posted by Sophie @ 1:10 PM
19 Comments:
After reading "Freedom to Read" presented by the ALA, I have to agree with everything being said except for one thing...
In the first paragraph of "Freedom to Read," it states
"Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove or limit access to reading materials, to censor content in schools, to label "controversial" views, to distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors, and to purge libraries."
They have obviously included children in the population of people who should have the freedom to read without censorship of any kind.
Then under the 6th propostion the ALA states, "In a free society individuals are free to determine for themselves what they wish to read, and each group is free to determine what it will recommend to its freely associated members."
Should children be completely free to choose for themselves what they wish to read? Should "publishers and librarians" make sure that even items in adult bookstores are made available to 5 year olds so they are "free to determine for themselves what they wish to read...?"
"Freedom to Read" suggests that people are intelligent enough to determine what is false information or propaganda. "We trust Americans to recognize propaganda and misinformation, and to make their own decisions about what they read and believe." But how do Americans learn how to recognize propaganda and misinformation?
I believe we need to teach these skills first in order to allow freedom to read. So my contention is yes, nothing should be censored from Americans whether it is something I completely disagree with or not. These materials should be freely available at public libraries.
However, like I stated in my first post about banned books, I believe that we cannot expose children in a school setting to adult content and ideas that take a mature mind to comprehend. Children are mandated by law to attend a school. I know parents have the option of home schooling or private schools, but for many that choice is not truly available. So if we are going to force children to attend a school, we cannot lightly give them the entire world of ideas and images to read and view. In my justification for censorship, I am mostly referring to outright pornagraphy and ideas that children are not ready for...but someday they will be. In my contemporary children's literature class we have discussed that there are some books that you would not read to first graders but you would read to sixth grades based on the content. Censorship is happening in this situation and it is good censorship in my opinion.
But the problem lies here...if we acknowledge that censorship is appropriate for children, who makes the determination which materials are appropriate and which are not for each cognitive level? This is basically the problem we have in our country right now with banned and challenged books. There is no 1 standard for this and there never will be..
So as a librarian, I will use a little bit of censorship in building my collection. If you think about it, everyone does. How many elementary librarians across this country are adding "Go Ask Alice" to their collections? They aren't because they know it is not appropriate material for their population.
Sorry this is so long. You can't shut me up when I get going.
I agree with most of what's written in the Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read Statement but the question in my mind is, "Is there really such a thing as complete freedom?" Even in the constitution limits are stated. Yelling "fire" in a crowded room or threatening the president is not protected.
We have the right to free speech but we don't have the right to be published, do we? In the Freedom to Read Statement it says "We believe that every American community must jealously guard the freedom to publish and to circulate, in order to preserve its own freedom to read." If they're speaking in general terms I agree. The government can't prevent you from publishing but private industry doesn't have to accomodate the individual. Just because I have something to say doesn't mean people have to listen to me or legitimize me.
As a librarian I have to be ready to accept all viewpoints. Currently the hot issue is homosexuality. According to the Freedom to Read Statement, if I stock books promoting homosexuality I must also stock books that oppose it. If I stock books on racial tolerance I must also stock book on intolerance. I'm perfectly fine with this but what about the community?
Complete freedom doesn't really exist. We're all molded by our society, culture, and community. As libarians we can only work within those parameters. As the world changes, so must we.
There are sections of libraries that I never use, so why are my tax dollars supporting them?
Probably because other people have an interest that I don't share, and that's okay.
I had never been in the cookbook section until I got bored with the same old foods. Thank goodness someone had the idea to bake tofu because it's fantastic. I had a need; the library had the answer.
The most pertinent part of "Freedom to Read" is the belief that, "We need to know not only what we believe but why we believe it." I never like to hear "because" as an answer to "Why?" and I always try to provide or find answers that satisfy. True answers will not be found in a library that censors because truth is not the same for everyone.
During myth classes, students often see patterns develop and begin to question the relationship between myth and religion. It provides a platform from which students can begin to examine their beliefs. I don't mind what religious preference a student has, but it is not enough to have a preference because a parent said this is what our family is. Religion is faith, so how is knowledge going to help in knowing why we believe? Until I was in my twenties and actually read The Bible, my religion was just a program. I knew there were many religions and that some celebrated different holidays, but so what. Having the freedom to read the Torah or the Koran has shown me there are more similarities than differences. Reading native american "folklore" has shown me there are many similarities even when the messenger isn't in man's shape. Since religion is faith, do I know why I believe? No! Have I been able to make a choice? Yes!
I know I went for a touchy subject, but does a parent want to raise a zombie or a miniature "them"? I would think parents would enjoy having a child that went off, gathered information, and returned to discuss the findings. Perhaps the parent never had freedom to read and is now afraid.
As a librarian there will not be any part of the library I neglect, but there will be books I do not read, but I'll keep them around for those that want to understand both sides of an issue before speaking.
As I read the Freedom to Read statement and the Library Bill of Rights, I felt really connected with my liberal heritage and wondered what the Conservatives on the far right have to say about it. All things considered, it is the role of libraries to have the widest variety of reading material possible for the people who utilize its services. Brian brings up a good point in his blog that not everybody shares the same interests, yet the public funds libraries via tax dollars to meet the needs and interests of people from all walks of life.
I am a liberal person who feels that the freedom to express oneself through writing is crucial for the development of modern ideas. The Freedom to Read statement states, “Pressures toward conformity present the danger of limiting the range and variety of inquiry and expression on which our democracy and our culture depend.” It is the result of radical ideas and actions against the norm that our country has developed into the most advanced nation on Earth. Individuals understand that this is a place where you can take it upon yourself to be and write what you want. Of course, there is always a positive and a negative reaction to any piece of literature, whether it is published in a magazine or a picture book.
While my personal views are liberal, as a teacher, I am more conservative. Every day I remind myself that I am shaping the minds of third graders, who are still developing good judgment. My students are the offspring of people who have their own beliefs about what is good and bad for their child and the children they associate with. In my classroom library, I have a wide variety of fiction and nonfiction books that range from 1st grade leveled readers to 5th grade texts. I am aware that the content of the larger chapter books meant for older students may be considered questionable by parents. At a quick glance I see several Harry Potter books and A Wrinkle in Time. I recommend texts to students based on their reading levels and, for the better readers, how responsible they are. If a child is too immature, I would not recommend a book such as The Higher Power of Lucky, but for the right child I would. Sometimes, I question myself whether I want a certain book in or out of my collection. I want my students to ask questions and become self-guided learners, but how can that happen if they are restricted? The Freedom to Read statement also writes, “Democratic societies are more safe, free, and creative when the free flow of public information is not restricted by governmental prerogative or self-censorship.” Is it really? Would this be the same for elementary school libraries? I wonder.
I believe in this statement that everyone has the freedom to read. It is sad how sometime that right is challenged. I believe that as a library media specialist, I would allow every student this freedom to read. I would try to provide for the students in any possible way that I can. I understand that some parents would prefer their students not to read certain books or read about certain subjects, but I would grant that choice to the parents and not deny books to my students. This line does get a little blurred though because there are some books that are age-appropriate and not appropriate for all students.
I liked the quote, “We trust Americans to recognize propaganda and misinformation, and to make their own decisions about what they read and believe.” It seems simple enough, but it does take work to trust people to make their own decisions in some cases. I believe that students should still be trusted as well, but they do need to be taught this skill of how to recognize these things along with their other library skills.
My question is: How can we ensure that students are still granted this freedom to read at all times (while still staying out of trouble from others trying to deny this freedom)?
I think that both the Freedom to Read Statement and the Library Bill of Rights are very powerful statements that need to be brought to the attention of all who use the library.
As I read "The Freedom to Read Statement" and The Library Bill of Rights, one thing kept popping into my mind: What ever happened to parents deciding what is "right" for their child?
I don't think there is one person in our class who would argue the first proposition in "The Freedom to Read Statement": "It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those that are unorthodox,unpopular, or considered dangerous by the majority." We all know it will be our job to provide a variety of materials to our students. We just discussed this tonight. We can't make selection decisions based on our biases or our community's biases. We have to provide materials to help our students think globally.
So, we know to provide the information and we know these two documents are important truths, but the bigger question is what to do with the people who suppress these rights. I think the only people who have the right to censor material is a child's parent. I'm new to this whole parent thing (step-mom to three daughters since November), and I find I look at some things differently now. I would never let someone else tell my daughters what they could and could not read, but I sure as heck know what they're reading and watching at all times. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for sometimes and many students can read more mature material when there is an adult there to discuss the topics with them. Communication is the key.
The Freedom to Read statement lists rights that we tend to take for granted living in this country. I fully expect that if I have a question, somewhere out there is a book that will answer it, or that will at least discuss the issue, no matter the topic. If that is true for me, then that should be true for anyone else out there. If I can’t get my question answered, then I should also have the freedom to ask. It is about freedom of expression. Yes, there are many conversations that I do not want any part of, but it is my right to have the choice to participate or not. I am thankful for that right, and cannot imagine living in a society where those freedoms do not exist.
That being said, there is the issue for all of us of how this applies to the school setting. I often tell my students that my classroom is NOT a democracy, and that they also do not have complete freedom of speech. There is a notion of appropriateness. I agree with Kim that a parent should be able to have a say over what their child is reading. That is not too difficult when the child is young, but does become tough once that child is a teenager. The child’s world expands, his access to materials grows, and Mom, you are not always with him. So, it comes back to teaching or children to pick material that is valuable to them, or is entertaining, or helps them to grow, but that is not damaging. Kids often do not know what is damaging, but once an image has been put in your mind, especially a powerful one, it is impossible to remove. My daughter and I often have that discussion when it comes time to pick movies to watch.
I do like the following passage from the Freedom to Read statement, “We trust Americans to recognize propaganda and misinformation, and to make their own decisions about what they read and believe.” I think that you could extend that statement. If we give our kids complete freedom, then we are also trusting that they can handle and are ready to deal with whatever they read. When it comes to kids, I do not agree that they are ready for that responsibility. We know that we, as parents and as teachers, try to teach our children and students to make choices that are appropriate for them and whose consequences are not harmful to them. I know that watching the movie Jaws when I was a child was harmful to me, and was an experience that I could have better dealt with had I been older. We should limit access to material that is inappropriate for a child’s age. However, my question is this: How do we determine what is appropriate? Children mature at different rates, and at a high school, there is a huge difference in the physical and intellectual maturity between ninth and twelfth graders. I guess we put our hope and faith in our library committee, and do our best.
All in all, I guess that even though I firmly believe in the freedom to read, I also believe in the appropriateness of reading material, and that it is our duty to teach our children and students how to make thoughtful decisions about what information to use, and ways to make use of that information that does not cause them harm.
I have a few questions after reading these documents. One statement informs, "Materials should not be
excluded because of the origin, background, or views of
those contributing to their creation." Should views from books and documents such as Nazism or the KKK be avialable to elementary age children without teacher approval? If we put a book on the shelves and say nothing of its origins are we doing an injustice to the students? Like someone else said on the comments, I believe we should teach that discerning the written word is important before interpreting text and how to proceed after interpreting it. If, for instance a child says to themselves, "That's right, I had a bad experience with one or two people who fit that description, so, as is being persuaded to me, I will take violent action against those 'kind of' people!"
As many have said in their postings, when deciding what should be available in a school library, age and maturity levels need to be considered before acquiring them.
I will be the Library Media Specialist in an Elementary School. Our library has always been geared to subjects included in the PreK-5 curriculum. Due to this, it can be seen as going against the Freedom to Read and Bill of Rights set forth by the ALA. I did notice that the first statement included in the Bill of Rights is the following. “Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves.” We serve students between the ages of 3-11. Therefore, the interests, desires, and needs of that population are available.
Some may feel that this is censorship, and that we are not giving our students access to all books on all subjects. In this case, I would send them to the public library. Our school does not have the budget to purchase materials on every subject. So we choose to have a lot available on the subjects they desire the most.
I, too, am a parent, and believe that my child should be able to choose the book she wants, but I don’t want her to have the option of checking out books on sex or adult relationships at age 6. Parents may feel that they can monitor their child’s library usage, but honestly, they can’t. Students can check out books, and then choose to leave them at school. The books may never may it home, and the library can’t legally keep a record of usage. So I ask, then, how do you monitor that?
Finally, I am concerned with the issue of courts upholding the rights of the First Amendment for children when stating that schools may not restrict access based on viewpoints expressed in the material. Does this mean that we must have opposing viewpoints represented in our library collection, or that we must include all subjects?
I am all for every single statement in both the Freedom to Read and the Library Bill of Rights. Finally, as a teacher, we will have a code to back up our practices.
After reading the Freedom to Read Statement, I had to sit down and take a breath! As a future librarian I realized what a huge responsibility it is to provide access to all information to my patrons. The quote that caught my attention most was, "It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of view and expressions including those unorthodox, unpopular and considered dangerous to the majority."
When you think about it, where would our society be without this philosophy? However, I've never been the one in the past to be a leader of this statement, and I find it a huge responsibility to carry out. I mean think about it...as librarians, we are responsible for the content of our libraries. Therefore, we have the power to say what people read and what they don't.
I'm also really excited. One of my biggest challenges as a middle school teacher has been getting my students to think indepedantly. I believe this class a taught me a different way to approach my students with regards to reading and thinking.
Section II of the Library Bill of Rights is my hands-down favorite of all the sections. It reads: "Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval." This statement empowers librarians to be guardians of democracy.Again, this time from The Freedom to Read: "The right of any individual not just to read but to read whatever he or she wants to read is basic to a democratic society." These two statements sum up my most ardently held views about what libraries are all about.
Obviously, minor-aged children are subject to the beliefs and standards of their parents and this is as it should be. It is not by chance that nature has engineered children to begin to rebel against their parents at about the age that they gain their majority in society.
I read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago at age 13. My mother's philosophy of reading was "read whatever you can handle". Our public library's children's librarian tried repeatedly to steer me away from "grown ups books", with little success and I have my mother's open-mindedness to thank for reading widely as a young person. I certainly didn't understand a lot of what I read because at age 13 I had not yet studied Russian history, but even at 13 I did understand the misery and suffering a political regime can bring down upon its own people. Not a bad lesson to learn at any age, I think.
So when my oldest daughter was born I was sure I would never intervene in her choice of reading materials or censor in any way what she read. At age 3 I read her The Three Billy Goats Gruff and the light began to brighten for me. She cried and felt so sad and sorry for the Troll because clearly, he was a miserably unhappy soul to be so mean to the Billy Goats. What could we do for the Troll to make him happier? For weeks I saw in her play her attempt to resolve this dilemma and discovered that I was going to have to be a lot more thoughtful about what I read to this child. In 1st grade a friend of hers was reading "A Star For Sophie" and the friend's mother suggested I get a copy for my daughter to read also. At this point I was faced with the reality of declaring how I felt I had to censor my child's reading material because of her particular personality. The friend's mother curled her lip at the mere thought of parental censorship of a child's reading. How's that for irony? My daughter would have been devastated by the discovery of what was perpetrated against the Jews during the Nazi regime at her tender age.
It was both my right and my duty to censor my daughter's reading at a young age and I would stand by any parent's right to do the same for their child, regardless of my personal opinion on the matter. Will this result in some children never stepping much outside of the proscribed boundaries of their parents or extended families beliefs? Certainly. Others will go on to explore the myriad ideas and beliefs that are out there and formulate their own opinions and ideas, but only if libraries and librarians protect their right to do so.
There are several statements that really made me think about how important the role of a library media specialist is and how it will influence me. First and foremost, reading these statements reminded me how important it is for the librarian to offer a wide variety of materials to meet the needs of a diverse school. In addition, I need to put all personal bias aside and always try to act objectively in the selection of materials. I also think it is important to stand behind your beliefs. For example, if I believe that a book is important to have in my library, but it is a little controversial, I feel that it is my professional obligation to not be too scared to choose the book. As quoted in the Freedom to Read statement, “The shadow of fear cast by these pressures leads, we suspect, to an even larger voluntary curtailment of expression by those who seek to avoid controversy or unwelcome scrutiny by government officials.” I don’t want to be classified under the group that doesn’t offer a book because I am afraid of controversy or scrutiny. If we are not willing to stand up for these freedoms, who else will? We need to set the standard.
One instance where I am torn is in the situation of filtered technology access. By having filtered internet in our school library, we are in fact censoring information. According to the Freedom to Read statement, “We trust Americans to recognize propaganda and misinformation and make their own decisions about what they read and believe.” I think this is an incredibly powerful statement. How can we say that we support these beliefs in this statement if we are filtering, actually blocking access? That is my main question to the class.
I found Freedom to Read very well written and informative. Censorship is a big issue, and unfortunately I will probably censor more for what society would consider ‘appropriate’ then what I would. As a media specialist you are in a position to make everyone feel comfortable. What is okay with me may not be for someone else, and I understand that, but it is too bad that others may miss out on an opportunity to read a great work because of it. “Freedom keeps open the path of novel and creative solutions, and enables change to come by choice. Every silencing of a heresy, every enforcement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal with controversy and difference.”
I also like the idea that librarians need to make available a diverse collection. Media Specialists really need to think of the group which will be reading their books rather than what they enjoy or agree with. Students really need to be exposed to everything possible. If we teach our students how to deal with uncomfortable or compromising situations, we will be better off in the future.
After reading this my question is how would the world be different if no one censored but instead we taught people how to deal with and handle problems? I feel that if we did this, within reason, everyone would be able to make better decisions and judgments. Just like the saying that an uneducated voter is worse than not voting at all; making an uneducated or uninformed decision can turn out negatively.
After reading "Freedom to Read" and the Bill of rights my questions is...why doesn't the district adhere to these statements a little more strongly? If I as a librarian have the duty to uphold these practices and beliefs I'd like to know the district has my back. After hearing our speaker on Wednesday night, I'm not sure they would. That makes me a little nervous. Suzanne wrote about putting in books against and for homosexuality and racial intolerance, that we have to present both sides of the picture but "what about the community"? How would they feel about that? Would they come after me? I guess it's possible to ultimately lose your job for adhering to these statements.
A quote from "Freedom to Read"
"We trust Americans to recognize propaganda and misinformation, and to make their own decisions about what they read and believe. We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice their heritage of a free press in order to be "protected" against what others think may be bad for them. We believe they still favor free enterprise in ideas and expression."
Can we trust 1st graders to make a decision about a book that is best for them? I think this swings back to a need for parent involvement. They can 'protect' their own kids but they shouldn't try to be 'protecting' other people's children and censoring what they read.
As we learn more about banned/challenged books and the issues surrounding them I think it shows we have to walk a very fine line as librarians and really know our collections. I'm already prepared to go over it with a fine tooth comb so there are no surprises!
The statements of the freedom to read in the ALA statement seem obvious to me. That they need to be written out shows that to many people they’re not.
We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice their heritage of a free press in order to be "protected" against what others think may be bad for them.
I think this statement illustrates the main point about challenged books. There are people out there who feel that if something goes against their beliefs, then no one should have access to it. As librarians, we do need to be respectful of any parent’s wishes, but that must be for their child only and hopefully the parents will understand that it is only their own children they can restrict and other parents should have the same rights over their own children.
They do not foster education by imposing as mentors the patterns of their own thought.
The purpose of reading should be to help students create their own patterns of thoughts. There will always be books out there that are right for someone as well as wrong for someone. If children are given a range of books and taught to evaluate them, then these decisions become their own. If they’re only given a limited selection, then the thought processes arguably don’t belong to them, but rather the people who taught them. This would be very stifling of creativity in society as a whole!
Publishers, librarians, and booksellers do not need to endorse every idea or presentation they make available.
Just like the people challenging books, we need to be careful of imposing our own views. If not, we may accidentally have the same effect as them. I know even in our school library there are many books that I don’t agree with. And while I may groan when a student chooses someone to write a biography about that I don’t like, I recognize that student’s right to do so. Who am I to say they can’t?
I was surprised to see that this statement was written in 1953. Though it has been amended since, it’s good to see such a view was presented when conformity was more valued than it is now. It would be interesting to see the original and see how it has changed over the years. A quick web search only turned up the current version.
I personally agree entirely with the ALA's Freedom to read statement. Last time I checked, this was a free country we lived in (kinda right?!) and so why should we as librarians give ourselves the authority to deem books as inappropriate to read? Every single person should have the right to read what interests them. If I am in an elementary library, my collection will contain books and materials geared for that audience. If I am in a secondary library, which I hope to be in one day, I will have books and materials geared toward that audience. I feel it is our job as a librarian not to ban or sensor certain books, but to teach the students how to recognise things they read as being possibly questionable, to make them think critically about these things.
The ALA statement says "Parents and teachers have a responsibility to prepare the young to meet the diversity of experiences in life to which they will be exposed, as they have a responsibility to help them learn to think critically for themselves." To me this doesn't say take out Harry Potter because it might offend someone, or don't place Olive's Ocean on the shelf because it has the word "a**hole" in it.
If we don't teach our kids to access information and think critically about it, then who will? So, needless to say, there won't be any censorship going on in my library.
While reading both documents, "Freedom to Read", and "Library Bill of Rights", I realized, just as Stephanie did, the great gift we have been given as Americans: FREEDOM. We have rights and entitlements that so many others on this Earth do not. The following quote captured my attention,
"Freedom keeps open the path of novel and creative solutions, and enables change to come by choice. Every silencing of a heresy, every enforecement of an orthodoxy, diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal with controversy and difference."
The freedom we possess as Americans is precious, and should be defended in all realms of our exsistence. I have realized in this course that we as future librarians will be responsible for dictating such freedom, making sure it is upheld. That's a little scary, but also powerful, purposeful, and empowering.
I fully agree with KathyG and her view of guided "censorship". We know our student population and will have to use that as a guide. After I The Library Bill of Rights #6 reads, "Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use." This statement made me think about a troubling exhibit I saw several years ago at the GV public library. It was an art exhibit dipicting images of vivid death experiences possible meetings with Satan, etc. Needless to say I was shocked that they would allow this in the exhibit room yet after reading #1 in Freedom to Read, 1-7 actually,and #6 in the LB of R, I understand and have to agree that like the FTR statement says, most attempts at suppression rest on a denial of the fundemental premise of democracy: by exercising critical judgement, I can select the good and reject the bad but it is up to me to make that choice not the librarian or other party. Again, quoting FTR, Freedom has given the USA the elasticity to endure strain and we as librarians should be there to help guide students toward developing their own view points and critical thinking skills to empower them for the future. Let's simply use common sense.
While reading "Freedom to Read" I really noticed and thought about the second proposition in "Freedom to Read" that states "Publishers, Librarians and Booksellers do not need to endorse every idea or presentation they make available". This one hit home because this week we have been discussing censorship. I found that this hits home. There are books out there that we may not agree with, or even believe in, but as a librarian it is our job to supply those to others.
My question though is why are we not allowed to do that? Why should we as teachers and librarians have to be the parents and control what children are and are not allowed to read? Why should our jobs be to teach the children what their parent's believe? I feel that as a librarian we should have the supply thier and allow the famileis to teach how to pick from thier beliefs. I feel that it is an injustice when one person wants to stop a whole group of people from reading a book based on their personal beliefs.
That being said though I do believe that as a librarian we should be up to date on what is in our library and make sure that even though we are giving a variety of subjects and materials to the students it is age appropriate- but then again, as we learned from reading "Olive's Ocean" written at a 4th grade level that it may not be appropriate for that grade level, how are we to truly decide what is appropriate and not for each family? Isn't that denying the "Freedom to Read"? Maybe this is more directed to public libraries and not school libraries.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home