Monday, August 17, 2009

Banned Books Week Versus Library Crime; Call for the ALA to Track Library Crime

Why doesn't the American Library Association [ALA] track library crime? Why does it instead track efforts to keep children from accessing inappropriate material? Why does the ALA trump up efforts to protect children as evil in "Banned Books Week" [BBW] while at the same time downplaying criminal attacks on children in public libraries?

Yes, the ALA trumps up supposed "censorship" in BBW. Yes, the ALA downplays criminal attacks on children. Why does it do that?

Following library crime is not terribly hard or technically challenging. The ALA could do it easily if it wished. Instead such work is done by others. Consider these:

Sometimes libraries aid and abet pedophiles, even going so far as to destroy physical evidence. Why? As the former 40 year de facto leader of the ALA said, "A librarian is not a legal process. There is not librarian in the country — unless she or he is a lawyer — who is in the position to determine what he or she is looking at is indeed child pornography." Really? Is it that difficult? What makes lawyers better than librarians?

Sometimes the librarians themselves are victims and the ALA or its acolytes does nothing. Why?

So as to the title, "Banned Books Week Versus Library Crime," why does the ALA play up "censorship" but play down library crime?

Here's a search for "library crime" or "library crimes" on ALA.ORG - zero results:

Compare that with a search for censorship on ALA.ORG - thousands of results:

I call on the ALA to start tracking library crime.



  1. I call on Dan Kleinman to track it himself and stop calling on private organizations of which he is not a member to do things that are not within their mandate.

    I further call on Mr. Kleinman to begin tracking instances of anti-gay bigotry and factual errors on right-wing, anti-library sites.

    See how little sense that all makes? How is that different from what you just wrote?

    I should also point out that because your site is preoccupied with gays and sex, Blogger ads is now putting ads on your blog for gay cruises and Trojan condoms. Which I found so funny that I nearly fainted.


  2. Your Google search evidence is quite compelling.

    It also reveals that the ALA has an obvious bias against cats, since the term "dog" appears more often on than the term "cat".

  3. Chuck and WestBend451, thanks for commenting.

    Yes, Chuck, I saw those ads too. I'm not "preoccupied" as you say; actually you brought up the subject.

    Everyone is welcome here. My readers may find various ads useful, that's fine with me.

  4. This strategy is one that Ann Coulter is famous for employing--structuring a search poorly and then taking the results--which are more evidence of a poor search strategy than anything else--as proof of something.

    You put quotes around "library crime", when that is an unlikely way it would appear. The ALA doesn't really talk about 'library crime', but is more likely to talk about specific categories--thefts, assaults, etc.

    In fact, the correct term librarian use is 'security', and there are more than 2500 articles on

    As you would know if you were a member of the ALA, their magazine, American Libraries, does indeed include reports of crimes in libraries.

  5. Thanks for commenting, Marjorie.

    Unfortunately, you persist in avoiding the issue and attacking the messenger.

    I used to be an ALA member but membership is too expensive for me now.

  6. Huh?

    Marjorie brought into question the methodology you based your argument on. While she also asserted that this was done purposefully to create a straw man, that's hardly "attacking the messenger".

    Why don't you just reply to her claim, rather than take the "woe is me" approach that you often use whenever someone criticizes your logic.

    Do you recognize that a search for the precise phrase "library crime" isn't the best metric on which to base your argument?

  7. Please stick to the issues, and thanks for writing.

  8. Who is not sticking to the issues? Someone has suggested that the method you used to make your argument is flawed. What say you?

  9. Issues. Stick to the issues. The ALA needs to track library crime. That's the issue, not my Google searches.

    What say you about the ALA tracking library crime?

  10. Well, you made it the issue when you titled your post with the comparison that your Google searches are meant to provide the evidence to support. You used Google searchers to support your claim that libraries don't track crime. Yet, as Marjorie noted quite clearly, libraries do monitor and report security issues. Your assertion that just because the phrase "library crime" doesn't appear that often on the website is not a valid argument to the contrary.

  11. Then show me the list of library crimes the ALA tracks. There is none. I am calling for such a list. The ALA is in the best position to produce such a list. That is the issue, not the title of my blog post.

  12. Dan, please read my post again. I was sticking to the issue, and I was not attacking you, I was attacking your faulty methodology.

    And again, follow my clear instructions to find out about library crimes. Go to, and search for 'security'. There are more than 2500.

    You probably won't be satisfied, though, since they talk not about violent incidences in libraries (since there aren't many), but about the crimes that are most common in libraries, like theft and vandalism.

    But they definitely do report on crimes, and you can easily find that information if you simply look instead of assuming it isn't there after one poorly executed search.


Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.