Interesting posts on your books-you all are doing an excellent job of identifying the issues associated with the titles selected.
Is it ever acceptable for a book to be removed/restricted in a school library based on the opinion of a single person? Imagine you're in a media center and your school superintendent walks in and says "This book [add title of your choice] needs to go."
Is the inclusion of one word ever enough to say "I've made a poor selection decision--this book really doesn't belong in our library."? Then what about extending the one word idea to one idea--"This book is racist-we can't keep it in our collection." OR "This book presents an alternative lifestyle. No way will our community support that." When does selection become censorship by the media specialist??? Let's take it to the next level-
What did Google agree to do to enter the market in China?
New York Times Magazine article (may require free registration)
A Picture Says 1000 Words (no registration required)
You might want to read what Wikipedia says about self-censorship. The focus is more on journalists than on librarians.
A couple of posts reminded me that Hit List (an ALA publication) is available in full text on Net Library in GALILEO. The volume addressing children's books is available--so that touches on Judy Blume, etc. Also don't forget that on GALILEO you have other databases with potentially relevant information like Book Review Digest, etc. Even if your specific title isn't covered you might find information about the author, etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I can't believe that GOOGLE agreed to "purge its search results of any Web sites disapproved of by the Chinese government." I don't know a lot about foreign politics, but I could not imagine a country allowing this much censorship. And for the country to be proud of it - why be proud of raising citizens that can't even speak what they believe and can't read true facts about the history of their country. I know the Civil War was a very harsh time in our countries past; should we act like it didn't happen? Also, when the reporter talked to Charles Chao, he stated that there are things that are taboo in the US that we don't talk about it. He is sadly mistaken there. There may be topics that are taboo within a certain household or family; but the government has never said that we can not talk about something. Plus, what is taboo in my home may not be taboo in my neighbors home. After reading this article, I feel like China is the modern "1984." Big Brother is always watching!
The wikipedia article on self-censorship really reminds us all that self-censorship is the censoring of your "own" collection. The media center is the not a personal collection of the media specialists; rather it is the school's collection. The school's collection should be representative of the student and faculty population. Of course, there are always certain touchy subjects that may be appropriate in some parts of the world that are not appropriate in others, but literature should be available for all students. Just because it is available, does not mean that a particular individual is promoting a certain issue.
If my superintendent walked in a told me some book should not be on the shelf, I would tell him that all challenges are presented to the media committee. I would direct him to fill out an official challenge form, and that the committee would follow through. One person does not make decisions about what should or should not be in the media center because personal morals and values can cloud judgment. Board policies are in place for a reason- it does not matter what your job title is!
Unfortunately, in a small school system such as mine, one person can make that decision- the superintendent. That is the bottom line and the top dawg. Lots of people don't like it, but that's the way it is.
I never really think about censorship in other countries, but this article made me think. Yahoo actually gives out personal information of Chinese people who make a comment on a blog, chat, or email that the Chinese government does not agree with. It never really said exactly what happened, but I'm thinking jail or worse! I am really shocked and appalled that yahoo would agree to that and not think about what might happen to that person. What happened to freedom of speech and trying to promote THAT belief!!!!
"International corporations such as Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Google willingly censor their content for Chinese markets in order to be allowed to do business in the country."
We as Americans, for the most part, are not censored like this. I'm wondering why someone would compromise their values and beliefs. I guess money says a lot. It's better to be in the market and make money....
On the other side of this, if Google is censoring topics on its own, why is it not catching the words that are spelled incorrectly? It's like they are only half-hazardly censoring material. I'm a bit confused by Google on this matter.
On a side note, I found this whole link of articles relating to Youths and Censorship.
http://www.ncac.org/action_issues/Youth.cfm
I am certainly not one to go looking for trouble, but I have a hard time with censorship of any kind when its purpose is simply to avoid controversy. It’s a shame that people in authoritarian countries have to fear that their government will place sanctions on their works. Additionally, it’s interesting how an entity can try to censor, but it will never be 100% successful, such as spelling Tiananmen incorrectly on Google China will bring up images that were supposed to be censored from the site.
I was amazed at what Google has done in connection with the Chinese government. The citizens have a right to know what the true history is; not what the government wants them to think it is. I am glad that our country does not censor like this.
Reading an article like this does really make you think about how lucky we are to have the freedoms that we do in our country. I think many of us take for granted that the way things are in America are vastly different from the rest of the world. With our freedom, though, sometimes comes tragedy, as might have been the case at VT. I heard several reports on the news this week about how mass shootings at schools appear to be a uniquely American problem. Is this a result of our right to bear arms and the ease with which people can buy guns? I don't know...just something else to think about I guess.
I, too, think Google and others are more interested in profit and expansion than in ideals, but I just wonder would it have been better for the Chinese people to continue to have zero access before the Google deal came along? I mean we all see how it is far from a good situation, but at least the Chinese people (as described in the NYT article) have more access and freedom to use the Internet than they ever have before. We need to remember to measure progress in relative terms; China is not the United States of America.
What about the preferences of a particular region? I can imagine that in, say, California it would be easier to include something like "Heather Has Two Mommies" in a collection than it would be in many media centers in Georgia.
I guess what I'm saying is what is deemed acceptable versus not acceptable depends on where you are.
It appears to me that some books can go on shelves in certain communities and actually be suggested reading with great pleasure. Although, if you do this in a small rural town in Georgia it could cause a great deal of problems.
I am surprised that everyone is so surprised about censorship in China. Don't forget, China is a Communist country. That means dictatorship rule; that means do what the government wants; that means command economy; that means censorship.
The NY Times article stated that some people in China think their government is okay. It works, most are provided for. It's like saying what you don't know won't hurt you. They just don't realize the potential that they and their country are not achieving by continuing to uphold such strict policies.
Another article on the subject can be found at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/15/opinion/edmirsky.php this article also discusses the fact that the Chinese government also banns anything about democracy.
Finally, yes we are living in the USA. We do live in a country that is one of the "freest" on Earth. But, are we really that free? If we were, we wouldn't have filtering devices on our school computer systems...among other things. There is much I could say on this topic. I'll save it for later. :)
One of the major misconceptions people have about censorship is that it is more frequently "done" in areas of the country identified as "conservative". Many of the most public cases we've seen lately have been in states like California and in areas like the Washington DC vicinity --places most of us might label "liberal". So the whole notion that there is a community standard that might vary from place to place is probably an idea that we need to reconsider.
And in our own little corner of the world we often seen considerable support for access to materials, even when those materials are controversial b/c most people do believe that it one of the freedoms we've fought hard to keep!
It's never OK to remove a book based on one person's decision. Unfortunately it happens frequently. Especially when a parent objects. This is the reason we have a media committee and policies in place to review a questionable book to make an unbiased decision.
I had heard that Google had done this. China is a big market, google wanted in so the company did what it had to do. There is a Big Brother in China- the government. But again, China has made it very clear that if companies want in, they have to abide by the government rules. I don't agree with it, but I am not a believer of the government controlling everything.
I came across this article today at cnn.com. I am hoping you can either click to access or cut and paste. The article has to do with MySpace being allowed in China- but with restrictions.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/04/27/china.myspace.ap/index.html
I don't think that it is OK to remove a book based on one person's opinion. This is where a media committee should step in. We have a situation like this at our school right now. A teacher has challenged a book based on a parent's complaint. If I was that teacher, I would have suggested that the parent talk to the MS and begin the challenge process. MThomas summed up wikipedia and reminded us that the media center's collection is not the MS personal collection. It should be representative of the entire student body. I agree! There will be touchy areas, but if you don't like, don't read!
Post a Comment