Apparently 99% of Books Have Been 'Banned'!

Ever since the "book banning" charge arose after Sarah Palin was chosen as the VP candidate I have had a beef with the country's librarians.

Randall Hoven takes up the cudgel.

...regardless of Sarah Palin: what is so bad about a mayor, or even a student's parent, asking a school's library to remove a book from its shelves or just not display it as prominently?


When a mayor or parent or just anyone in the community tries to do such a thing, it is called censorship, book-banning or book-burning. When a librarian does it, it is called "selection."


First, I'd like to clarify the language. Normally, a thing is considered "banned" only if it is a crime to buy or own that thing. You know, like guns have been banned in New York City and Washington, DC. If a book is removed from a public library, it is not "banned," it is simply not provided free of charge at taxpayer expense. And if a book is not even removed from the library, but merely taken off its prominent display shelf, it is not banned or censored at all, it is simply not promoted by your local government.


If anything not provided free by the government is considered "banned," then everything from guns to stereo systems have been banned throughout our history. By that measure, almost everything except scooters for the handicapped is now banned.

But let's get back to considering the stocking of public libraries with books. The Library of Congress has about 21 million catalogued books. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, has 91,805 books in its entire Joseph T. Simpson Public Library system. The University of Kansas has 51,563 books in its Dykes Library. That means these two large library systems contain about 0.4% and 0.2%, respectively, of the universe of books contained in the Library of Congress. And even the Library of Congress does not have every book.


That means that just about any library you or your child uses has less than 0.1% of all books in it. Someone must have censored 99.9% of them! Who are these censors?


Here is part of the job description for a librarian:

Librarians are responsible for deciding which materials to buy for their libraries. They purchase not only books, but also videos, DVDs, compact discs, databases, and magazines. Librarians use lots of information to help them choose what to buy. They read special journals filled with reviews of new books. They listen to requests from library users. They also notice which books library patrons use the most. If a librarian sees that children's picture books in Chinese are checked out often, he or she might make a note to order more.

Couldn't anyone do that? What special expertise is required to go through journals and select? Who writes those journals? Not only librarians, but just about everyone from politicians to shoe salesmen listens to the requests of their customers. How do we keep bias from creeping into the decisions of librarians?


Here's an exercise for the reader. Ask your local public school library (grade school or high school) to stock Race, Evolution, and Behavior. It is listed on Amazon.com and is in fact ranked 61,595 in sales - fairly popular. Do you think the school librarian will put it in the display case next to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? After all, the librarian is trained to appreciate views that challenge the world views of the complacent, and books that "make you think."

When you choose what books go into a library, you are also choosing what books will not go into that library, since you simply can't fit them all in. So why are librarians considered the one and only ones who can make such decisions? Concerned citizens can't. Parents of children who use the school library can't. The mayor, or any other elected official, can't. Not ever. No way. No how. That's censorship. But librarians not only do it, they do it every day. It's considered their job.


The real question is not which books should be stocked and not stocked at your local library, but who decides.
...
When you put your child into the socialist institution of public education, a certified teacher can refer your child to a psychologist. That certified psychologist can diagnose your child with a behavioral disorder. A certified physician can then prescribe a behavior-modifying drug. Then your NEA certified teachers can demand that your child take that drug, with the full threat of the law, including the possibility of your child being taken from your custody. Just to make it clear, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools."


But fear not, everyone in the process is certified.


This Rule By The Discreet Elite has become more than just certification-gone-wild. It has become tyranny. What used to be considered a straight-forward matter of parenting and letting parents use their common sense and what their own mothers taught them, has become a matter for the "collective". As well-behaved members of this collective, we must respect our betters. And we know who our betters are, because they have certificates saying so. If you don't comply politely, you could be fined, jailed, or have your children take from you. It's for your own good.