Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs over book

Simple solution--some books can only be checked out "with parental permission". I took my kids to the library and looked at all of them before they checked them out. I also read the same books my kids were reading and if I found stuff in them that was questionable--I talked to my kids about it.

The library staff cannot take the place of parents but it can ensure that parents have some warning about what their kids decide to read. Parents should not forbid their kids from reading the "questionable stuff" but they should read them first and plan to talk with their kids about it.

These library staffers did not deserve to be fired--they just pointed out a dilemma that should be solved by the community, parents and the library.

Further, in the ALA's (American Library Association) Code of Ethics: "We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representations of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources."

Sounds exactly like what this lady was doing by taking the book off the shelf after she was told by the 'review' board that it wouldn't take it out of the library...(the bottom of page two or top of page three of the article)...

While I agree that parents should have an active role in their kids choices of reading of age appropriate material, I also feel that this lady overstepped her authority by bringing in her 'personal beliefs' to the work place...This has been going on for a long period of time with this lady over this book...and she had already been denied having it 'taken out of circulation'...And then with her 'friend' was caught up in the issue and 'dismissed as well for trying to go around the system when the computer wouldn't let her 'renew' the books (because of the 'patron's' hold)...

I really hope that more people step up and take responsibility for what I can and cannot do. I for one find it so annoying to have to make my own choices...I'd really like others in society and/or my government to dictate my life. It is so freeing to know that there are people out there who are willing to control me and others.

(and this whole post is facetious with point.)

Have these women checked out the bibles and removed them from circulation, as well? If not, they are hypocritical. The bible has many, many passages that are obscene, with graphic sexual content.

Does anyone know if the book was in the childrens' section, or where it belonged in the regular section for adults?

In general, I see a librarians' role with this book as being to have it in the correct section, and to be familiar enough with the contents to determine whether it should be in the childrens' section ( which, in this case, it definitely should not ) or with the rest of the books that people who've outgrown that section's use. If it was mistakenly put in the kids' section, her role was to put it in its proper place and that's it!! Other than maybe denying checkout of the book to an under-18 library patron at the desk, the rest is up to the parents.

If the book was where it belonged, then her keeping it out of circulation "for the sake of the kids" is BS. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could find a connection between her and the 11-year-old's family to suggest that she set that set of events in motion herself to rationalize her self-righteous attempt at censorship ( really, how many 11-year-old girls are into comics that aren't targeted for that age range, or curious enough about sex to try and find out what comics might give them a "peek" into such things? ). The "for the sake of the kids" war cry should be reserved for common sense issues of safety and not for enforcing some clucking mother hen's sense of morality at the expense of constitutional rights.

When a book molests a child, then this librarian will have a valid point in acting "to protect the kids" once the book's in the right part of the library. Until then, she's just a sad, self-righteous woman in dire need of a decent hobby.

The book was in the library's Graphic Novels section. Think Stephen King's Creepshow as a mainstream example of such a thing. It's basically a bound & novelized comic book. The article states this section is geared toward teens, though many adults are also into this type of literature.

I'm personally not seeing what the problem is with this wannabe librarian-cum-censor. Obviously a real librarian determined this was a book to purchase for their collection & it should've ended right there. Instead of this standoff where she has it checked out & refuses to return it, why don't they just buy another copy to circulate?

I've had it up to here with this "but think of the poor children" excuse for censoring just about everything lately. Fess up, how many times when you were a kid or a teenager did you sneak into R-rated movies or use fake ID to get into a bar? There's always a way if there's a will & this woman's crusade has done more to boost sales of this book than any advertising campaign could accomplish. Now everyone is curious to see just how salcious this thing is, & everyone will have a differing opinion on it, but no one else is trying to keep it out of the hands of others.

Children are do not arrive in a vacuum. They have parents. If a parent thinks the material is not something their child should read at a certain age, well, fine. That's their prerogative in child-rearing. But this woman should not be allowed to keep the novel out of the hands of adults or other children whose parents would permit them to read it.

Not sure if they do this anymore, but when I was a kid I could not take out any books from the Young Adult or Adult sections until I was either 13 or had a note from my mother. Since by age 9 I'd read the entire children's section, we opted for the latter. There's no reason for this woman to assume this 11-yr-old who requested the book isn't mature enough to read it or that the child's parents would object to such. It's not her kid & she is not in charge of censoring anyone's reading list.

Paradoxically, I can understand her knee-jerk reaction to something she finds explicit material. I'm forever marveling over the songs on the radio these days & the lyrics & subject matter that's regarded as normal, when back in the 70s we had such classics as Donny Osmond's Sweet & Innocent LOL, not Kid Rock screaming about how he wants to "@!$%# you like I'm never gonna see you again" or Theory of a Dead Man crooning about how "my girlfriend's a dick magnet". The times they are a-changin', & she's not the arbiter of if it's for better or for worse. What would bring a collective gasp in the 70s barely raises an eyebrow now. Get over it. It's just how things have progressed & some kook's determined stance isn't going to undo the current level of permissiveness.

I think that the things that brought a collective gasp in the 70's should also be bringing a collective gasp today. Just because the times they are a changin, doesn't mean that obscenities are the order of the day. The public, especially our children shouldn't be exposed to the lyrics of songs these days, anymore than in the 70's, or 60's for that matter. Decency, is decency regardless of the decade in which we live. I think the Bible should be required reading in school, contrary to what somebody wrote, there are no obscenities in the Bible, unless of course you take the verses out of context, like most people do. A collective prayer to God Almighty would be more appropriate, than a simple gasp. God Help Our Youth.

The book is not up to the librarians to decide who gets it and who doesn't. It's up to the parents to decide. All that the parent needs to do is this, take the child to the library and browse the shelves with the child. If your child picks up any book that you don't know or understand, ask the librarian, usually they can tell you something about it! Even if that something is, 'This person is not a children's author but writes books for a more adult audience, you might want to look at it first.'

If you look at it and object to it, you let them take it up to check out and in front of the child say, "We aren't taking this book. It's inappropriate and s/he knows it."

Check out your books and enjoy them with your family.

Don't tell me: But we're busy... We don't have time... It's easier to drop them off because I have other things to do. These are YOUR children. They are supposed to be WORTH YOUR TIME.

"People prayed over me while I was reading it because I did not want those images in my head," she says.

Uhuh, that's why we can choose not to read something. Very different from a parent choosing to review the book their child checked out as that's part of a parent's responsibility.

Cook says she found the book back on the shelves before she received a letter denying her request to have the book removed. She says she again told management she would check out the book indefinitely. She says she was not warned that this was a firing offense.

You mean someone needs to tell you that censoring books in a public library by a library official is beyond the bounds of your responsibility. Someone has to tell you that gross overstepping is a fireable offense?! Lady, use that brain you claim you have! I work in a school. I do not need to be told that if I slap a student, I will be fired. It's a given. You would in a library, a place supposedly free from all religious, political, and censoring restraints. I should be able to go into any library and find mein kampf, diary of anne frank, huckleberry finn, the bible, the satanic verses (by rushdie but if you got levey, so be it), shakespeare among others. Shoot, I spent a year in DeLand, Florida attending Stetson University, which was at one point quite religious, they had a huge section of alternative religions including Anton LeVey, Golden Dawn, Rosicurians. They also had Cotton Mather. Common sense should have told this woman, yes, withholding a book from someone just because you don't think it's appropriate for them, is a fireable offense. Because you aren't doing the job you are supposed to do!

"I'm an adult. I do not want you telling me what I can read," she says adamantly when you ask.

She just didn't want this book in the Graphic Novel section, which is located next to Young Adult Fiction. She didn't want it adjacent to what she calls "exaggerated comic books," like the X-Men series, and real comic books, like Spider-Man, which are so enticing to children."

Then how about asking if the library would move the section, don't merely assume just because you object to something everyone else will go along with you. What's exaggerated about X-Men... it's a comic just like any other comic, it's a real comic book.

In Scott and Woodford counties and in Lexington and Louisville, parents and legal guardians must sign for a child to obtain a library card. As such, in each of these libraries, as in the case of the Lexington Public Library, parents assume the "sole responsibility for their child's reading, viewing and listening of library materials. Neither the library nor library staff shall act in loco parentis. Selection and/or shelving of materials will not be influenced by the possibility that materials might inadvertently come into the possession of minors."

Critchfield would not comment on the terminations because they are personnel matters. According to the Employee Manual, grounds for dismissal can include insubordination, theft or misuse of the Jessamine library's property, breach of confidentiality information and any other violation of library policy.

And that right there is where she overstepped her bounds, she acted like she had the right. As if she was the child's guardian and she is not in any way so. Thus she violated the above policy, thus she got fired, what's the problem.

Martha White, acting director of the Lexington Public Library, says that some of the library's graphic novels are in juvenile literature and some are in adult fiction or adult non-fiction, depending on the content, the publisher and the review.

Neither the Scott or Lexington libraries had the book in question. The Louisville Free Public Library did, and it is placed in the adult section.

So, it was in the adult section, not the kiddie section. Oh well, like no kid ever went into the adult section of a library before. Those books are usually deliberately not marked. Juvenile books are usually marked with J, while young adult books marked with YA, if it is unmarked, it is assumed to be an adult book. All it takes is a look at the spine to see what type of book it is, any librarian will be happy to let any adult in on the system.

I gleaned this from the article...

1. The ladies were not librarians.
2. They did not follow procedure, as established by the board.
3. They were insubordinate.
4. They considered themselves the ultimate authority on what is regarded as pornographic and acceptable for the community..... until they got caught.
5. They thought that a violation of rules meant every first offense gets a slap on the wrist and warning, not termination.
6. They put forth the effort to submit a power point presentation AFTER they were fired, which is indicative of #4.

A part of me understands their need to prevent children from seeing objectionable material, but I do believe they approached this matter in an incorrect manner and that is the actual reason for termination of employment. It seems the library board is now faced with how to handle a couple of insubordinate individuals that have rallied like minded individuals to their side. Every job has strings attached and every employee needs to understand those. Not all 1st offenses carry just a warning. Censorship in a library is a very serious matter, and should have been understood by these ladies, ..... had they chosen to read some of the other literature in the library, imho.