The Adventure Continues

Since its debut in 1885 to as recently as January of 2009, “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” has been surrounded by controversy. Days after its initial publication, the Concord Library in Massachusetts described it as “trash of the veriest sort” and became the first library to ban it from its shelves. Over the years many libraries, including the Denver Public Library, the Omaha Public Library, the Brooklyn Public Library and even the New York State Reformatory have followed suit. The reasons have included the characters’ questionable morality, the book’s flippant and irreverent nature, and Twain’s vulgar use of language. Twain was amused with the controversy and responded to the bannings by stating: “That will sell 25,000 copies for sure”.
Although it has been banned for many reasons, the charge of racism emerged in late 1950’s and remains at the forefront of the controversy to this day. For Assignment 2, I decided to focus on a recent challenge made in Federal Way, Washington.

Censorship in the Classroom

Although it has been fascinating to theoretically discuss censorship in class, I just discovered that it’s an entirely different matter to watch it happen in your own town. Two local high school teachers in my hometown have recently become the center of a censorship battle. Apparently, the parent of a high school student complained to his child’s school that inappropriate videos were shown in two of his child’s classes. The first is a PBS Production called "Rage on the Radio" produced by Bill Moyers. “Rage on the Radio” is a video that discusses the effect that hostile “Shock Jock” media has had on political discourse. The second is an online video called “The Story of Stuff”, which critiques consumerism and promotes environmental sustainability.

The complaint stated that the teachers failed to provide balance to the videos by only showing one point of view and that the videos were liberal and partisan. The school board, by a 4-3 vote, backed the use of “Rage on the Radio”, but by another 4-3 vote said the use of “The Story of Stuff” was a violation of district policy regarding academic freedom. The board said that the teacher offered nothing to balance the view put forth in the “Stuff” video, even though the district policy doesn't mention anything about balance. The board continued to explain that a major factor in their decision was that the video had no application to a biology class. Yet, according to a science teacher at the same high school, sustainability is a component of the biology curriculum.

Surprisingly, high school students were the board’s most vocal opponents. Many students made statements to the board expressing their concern for setting a precedent that encourages censorship and violates academic freedom. The students also reiterated that the video was presented in an attempt to engage in classroom discussion.

The board chairwoman has expressed her desire to have the board revisit the issue, but only a board member who voted for the majority can bring the issue up for debate again and that doesn't seem likely.

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism

The Senate and House of Representatives enacted the USA Patriot Act on October 25, 2001, six weeks after the September 11th terrorist attacks. The purpose of the act was to “To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes”.

The section that most significantly affects librarians is Section 215: Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Aka “The Library Records Provision”.

215 states: “The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution”.

Basically, this section is an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that gives the FBI the authority to order a person or institution to turn over “any tangible thing” that the FBI may need in an authorized investigation “to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities”. This section refers specifically to books, records, papers and documents, but is not limited to these items. In Section 215, the FBI does not need to show probable cause. Those served with a Section 215 Order are forbidden from disclosing the investigation to anyone else, and in some cases, the person being investigated doesn’t even know that they are under surveillance.

Under Section 215, an individual’s personal library records can be used as the impetus for FBI surveillance. This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. 215 also violates the Fourth Amendment right to probable cause and fair notice after a compromise in privacy, and the Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Sylvester and the Magic Pebble

“Sylvester and the Magic Pebble” by William Steig was my favorite book as a child. I must have had my mother read it to me a thousand times. As a Christmas gift last year, my mother gave me the Restored Deluxe Edition, which included my very own magic pebble charm. (I have yet to find it’s magical powers, but I’ll keep you posted)

For those of you unfamiliar with the book, it is a talking-animal fantasy about a young donkey named Sylvester who finds a magic pebble. By a very unlucky turn of events, which includes a very scary lion, Sylvester accidentally turns himself into a rock with no way of transforming himself back into a donkey. The characters in the book are all depicted as animals: chickens, dogs, cats, wolves, donkeys, and pigs.

The controversy and subsequent banning came about because of Steig’s depiction of policemen as uniformed pigs. In 1977 (seven years after Steig won the Caldecott Medal for Sylvester and the Magic Pebble), the Illinois Police Association wrote to many Illinois librarians asking them to remove the book from their shelves. Apparently, Illinois policemen were not the only ones offended because similar requests were made in eleven other states. The International Conference of Police Associations agreed that the depiction of policemen as pigs was derogatory and the book was banned in several places.

In my opinion, the policemen pigs are depicted in a positive light…they are the first animals that Sylvester’s parents went to for help and they are actually quite cute. Obviously Steig denied any political intention. He told Time magazine that he viewed pigs as a good symbol for all mankind. He stated that they are ''a creature surrounded with filth and danger, a victim of circumstances created by himself, unwilling and unable to do anything about his condition -- and even, perhaps, in a way enjoying it''. It seems silly now to think about banning a book for this reason, but tensions were very different in 1970 than they are today. In any account, all of the publicity was extremely helpful to book sales and it is still popular today, almost 40 years later.

One of my favorite quotes from Steig came from his acceptance speech for the Caldecott Medal. I feel like it sums up his playful and imaginative nature that so obviously shines through in his stories.
“Art, including juvenile literature, has the power to make any spot on earth the living center of the universe; and unlike science, which often gives us the illusion of understanding things we really do not understand, it helps us to know life in a way that still keeps before us the mystery of things. It enhances the sense of wonder. And wonder is respect for life.”

Intellectual Freedom Cannot Exist Without Privacy

I work in the interlibrary loan department of an academic library. Although our privacy policy is quite strict (in the liberal sense), until recently, this policy has not filtered over into the ILL department. After doing a little research, I found that this seems to be the case in most academic libraries. Many progressive academic libraries have overlooked privacy concerns when it comes to ILL. As a result, very little research has been done with privacy concerns in ILL.

In the Library Bill of Rights, the ALA affirms that rights of privacy are necessary for intellectual freedom and are fundamental to the ethics and practice of librarianship. Yet many ILL databases have no privacy barriers in place. In the worst case, access is open to any and all employees with no barriers to prevent nosy people (or government subpoena) from looking at infinite personal requests.

I am lucky to work in a progressive library where this issue is in the process of being solved. We are currently working towards decoupling old ILL requests with our patron’s records. As you can imagine, this process has been long and difficult, but we are thrilled to be in the final phase. When the decoupling is complete, our database will hold records for 90 days after which point the patron’s information will automatically be purged from the request. Obviously this is not a perfect solution. In a perfect system, a request would be completely separate from the patron, but for now, this is the best that we can do.

One of the most difficult parts of this process has been explaining to our patrons why they will no longer have access to their old requests. Some patrons, many of whom have hundreds of requests and use the database as a personal reference point to their research, have been quite upset at this inconvenience. It was even suggested by one upset patron that they would like to waive their right to privacy. Although painful to hear, I have tried to use this opportunity to educate patrons on the importance of privacy as an integral component to intellectual freedom. Without privacy, there can be no intellectual freedom.

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to my LIS 551 blog.