Know Your Library

There appears to be a façade of disagreement where in reality there is almost unanimous consensus. The library has indicated that this is a “battle” and that everyone [the community] is in agreement with them.

There were over 50 comments posted recently, and we agree with almost all of them. Where there was any disagreement with the community’s comments on the Post Dispatches’ website, it was very marginal and immaterial.

We actually took the opportunity to respond to many of them below in an effort to clarify our position and demonstrate the consensus. Every effort was made to address all of the various issues and suggestions. Those that we didn’t respond to were either very similar in nature to those included or were comments that expressed agreement that required no explanation. Finally, those that were off topic were just not addressed.

Black comments are those from the public. Gold colored comments are our responses.

We agree. No one suggested removing books from the library shelves. What was suggested was identifying the sexually graphic material in some way.

No one has advocated that your child not have free access to any of the material you, as a parent have approved of for your child. Furthermore, material remains freely available even when shelved in the adult section. This was clearly stated in our policy suggestions.

This was never stated or requested. Rather what was advocated was an “Adult Advisory Committee” similar to the “Teen Advisory Board” currently in place. Its proposed purpose is similar to that of the teen group, to assist with collection development.

That was exactly our request.

Unpaid volunteers appointed group by County Council and Library Board, a group that would hopefully mirror the community and reflect the diverse opinions of our community, not just that of Mr. Paces.

It was not suggested that the process for reviewing material for the sake of identifying and/or rating the material be done by a self-appointed group. Rather, what was advocated was the establishment of a group that reflected the general diversity and will of the community. We suggested that this could be done by through to use of the County Council and the library board. Specifically, our suggestion was: each county council member select three individuals for this committee. From the three in each council district the board would select one, for a total of seven members. This should provide a balanced committee that reflects the community.

We agree completely. No one is trying to monitor your child. We are just asking the library to provide additional information that some parents might find helpful in the monitoring of their own children.

Again, we agree completely, but in most cases, the child can’t honor a parents wishes even if he wants to. Often there is no indication that the material in question contains the sexually graphic material that he or is parents find objectionable, at least not until he has actually read the material, and then it is too late. Many of the books have unassuming, innocuous titles that provide no indication of the sexually graphic material they contain, thus giving rise to a paradoxical situation. This is where the community could benefit from a rating system similar to that used by the movie, television, music and gaming industries. This would provide the identifying information which could be used to provide information about the material, rather than after the fact.

No one called the books “pornographic.” No where was that stated in the article or at the meeting. Possibly the name of one of the groups involved - Citizens Against Pornography - has caused the confusion? They specifically called it “sexually explicit.”

What was actually said in reference to the Alice series was, “These books start out as being geared for second-graders. By the time she’s [Alice] in middle school, there is stuff that just isn’t for the eyes of an 11-year-old. You look at the cover and there’s this little blonde-haired girl with braces smiling. It’s just too sexually explicit.”" What was said that wasn’t included was that it was “in my opinion, just too sexually explicit.”

The point was that the cover was innocent looking. The book was unassuming on the surface and offered no hint to the sexually graphic material it contained. Its innocent cover led you to believe that it was innocent in content as well.

Absolutely untrue. No one is seeking to impose any values or morals on anyone, we just want to assist those trying to find the material that they want or to avoid that which they don’t want. However, we do agree with you that narrow minded people do not want to you make choices for yourself. Withholding information essentially limit’s the known information, limiting known information prevents one from make an informed choice for oneself. Ask yourself again, who is really trying to limit your ability to make a decision, those that are asking for full disclosure, or those who want to withhold information.

Clearly, everyone can read each book and get the information, and thus make an informed decision, but now we are asking all parents to commit themselves to the same redundant task. We live in a very busy world, most parents don’t have the luxury of this kind of time. Why wouldn’t we want to pool our resources and provide the information to all, so each person can make their own decision.

If a book, like a movie or video game, is rated as having graphic sexual content, you now have the option to read this book and see if the book is appropriate for your family or not. The information just helps a parent limit’s the pool of books that they might want to pre-read.

Again, I have to agree with the majority of comments provided. We are a diverse community and we each have a right to read about the topics of our choice. However, you have the option to not read these books, and to restrict your children’s access to these books as well. You are very fortunate because the library makes it possible for you to readily identify books that discuss woodcarving, they are in the Dewey range of Q736.4. Unfortunately, there is no such designation or identifying information on most of the sexually graphic fictional material in question.

Absolutely not, but that is a great analogy. We use labeling on all food. The purpose of the labeling is to provide the consumer information to assist them in making an informed decision. For example, if a child is allergic to peanuts, parents need the information on labels to help protect the child. This is the very exact same thing. No one is taking the food out of the store, nor is anyone prohibiting you from buying the food. They are just providing you with information about the food, so you can decide.

Agreed on all counts except the last. No one is having the books removed or ban. Requiring parental approval was also suggested at the library board meeting. This is still a common policy at many libraries across the country. However, the St. Louis County Library system has abandoned this practice.

This is interesting. We are asking for full disclosure, so you have the opportunity to make that decision, not CAP or anyone else. The CAP people want you to have more and better information, they want you to make your own choices, the library on the other hand wants to hide the information and excerpts. They don’t want you or your children to know it is there before the fact, only after the fact.

Additionally, the teen material and services are targeted to children 11-17. Furthermore, the library’s policy, in accordance with the American Library Association’s, will make any material in the library available to any one of any age. On their website, under Children’s Material it states: “ Although the Library facilities are divided into sections such as Juvenile, Reference, Fiction, Nonfiction, etc. for the convenience of the public, customers of any age may use all parts of the library. “

As the library says on their website, teens vary in maturity levels. Maybe the age range of 11-17 is just too broad. We think that every one would agree that there is a huge difference intellectually, emotionally, physically… etc between an 11 year old and a 17 year old. It is seems incongruent to think that the same material would be appropriate for the average 11 year old and the average 17 year old. Furthermore, we don’t consider 11 a teenager.

We agree books shouldn’t and, thankfully, can’t be ban. That would abridge our First Amendment Rights. However, classifying books is not censorship and every title in the library is labeled for the sake of identifying and cataloging the material. Material is categorized in a myriad of ways, such as by subject, material type, genre, author, age level, awards won… It is these very labels that serve as the criteria for a book search in the library’s catalog system. What would be wrong with one more classification to assist parents, particularly if the classification is for an attribute of the material that has been deemed acceptable by the library?

This is one of the few comments posted that we actually disagreed with. We think that parents should be given complete control in matters that pertain to their children, not “some.“ This could be accomplished through the implementation of some of the

suggestions made at the meeting and outlined above.