The Parent Trap: ALA Uses Banned Books Week to Ridicule Patrons Complying with ALA Materials Reconsideration Policies

ALA's "Think for
Yourself" Robot

The American Libraries Association [ALA] sets up parents for ridicule, then leads the charge in ridiculing them using propaganda techniques.  "Banned Books Week" [BBW] is the ALA creation it uses to lead the deceptive and disgraceful effort to ridicule people.  It wants people to ignore what the US Supreme Court said or even what the ALA's creator of BBW said about legally keeping inappropriate material from children.  The ALA cannot be trusted by local communities.

The ALA Uses BBW for Propaganda Purposes

The ALA uses BBW that it created on its own for propaganda purposes.  It talks about hundreds of banned books, yet the last book banned in the USA was Fanny Hill in 1963, about half a century ago.  For example, see "2010 Banned Books Week - Top Ten Banned and Challenged Books for 2009," by American Library Association, OIFTube, 24 September 2010.

Isn't it propaganda for the nation's self-arrogated leader in censorship to list hundreds of books "banned" in 2009 when the last book ban occurred in 1963?  The goal is to convince people not to keep children from inappropriate material since that would make them "censors."  What is the evidence?  Read on for just the latest example.

How the ALA Sets Up Parents for Ridicule

The ALA sets up parents for ridicule.  It does this by advising libraries to create, maintain, and exercise so-called "materials reconsideration policies."  They should really be called "leading with the chin policies" since the ALA sets up people to get whacked merely for complying with the policy and filing a complaint as directed.

The ALA created these policies to stop the removal of books by individual librarians reacting to patron complaints by removing materials.  The ALA then guides libraries on how to promote the policies to the public and the media.  For example, the ALA guidance says, emphasis in original:

What does the library do if someone complains about something in its collection?  We take such concerns very seriously. First, we listen. We also have a formal review process in which we ask you to fill out a special form designed to help us understand your concerns. Anyone who makes a written complaint will receive a response in writing.

But that is patently false in spirit when viewed in context of the ALA's latest BBW propaganda.  Recall the ALA propaganda I linked above:

ALA Graphic Showing Claim of Up to 460 Books Banned in 2009

"In 2009, 460 books were banned or challenged in the United States," says the ALA.  That may be true, but only if 460 of the 460 were challenges and not bans.

ALA Graphic Characterizing Policy Challenges as "Demands to remove books"

"460 demands to remove books from schools, libraries and bookstores," is the next ALA statement, as shown above.  Setting aside the ALA's questionable mission creep into bookstores, notice how proper filings for relief under materials reconsideration policies are characterized as "demands to remove books."

Now watch as the ALA performs the propagandistic coup of subtly claiming any and all attempts to seek compliance under the ALA material reconsideration policies are really attempts at censorship.

The ALA Ridiculing Parents

The ALA, having set up the mechanism of "materials reconsideration policies," then leads the effort in ridiculing anyone who avails themselves of the ALA-inspired policies:

ALA Graphic Ridiculing Anyone Who Followed ALA-Inspired "Materials Reconsideration Policies"

"460 persons or groups who believed that they should decide for others what they could read," says the ALA as pictured above.

So, the ALA directs libraries to utilize "Materials Reconsideration Policies," then it leads the effort to ridicule anyone who avails himself of such policies.  Merely for complying with the ALA-inspired policy, you supposedly "believe you can decide for others what they could read."  And all the while the ALA is in reality deciding for others what they can read, namely, anything.

The ALA goes so far as to say challenges are "a threat to freedom of speech and choice."  Comply with a materials reconsideration policy the ALA recommends and you are suddenly labeled a threat to freedom of speech and choice because you supposedly believe you can decide for others what they can read.  Do you understand the game the ALA is playing?  Is this not propaganda?

Jamming / Ridicule = Deceptive / Disgraceful

The particular propagandistic technique being used by the ALA in this case is called "jamming" (more here:  "Effect of Jamming, is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof").  Essentially, if you ridicule everyone each time, eventually people will stop placing themselves in the position of being ridiculed.

Alinsky Rule 5
"Ridicule is Man's
Most Potent Weapon"

Further, Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals said, in Rule 5, "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. ....  [Y]ou do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments."  And the ALA uses ridicule for this very purpose, as a weapon to thwart efforts to legally protect children from inappropriate material.  The ALA's moral argument is its BBW 2010 theme, namely, "Think for yourself and let others do the same."

See the graphic to the right for Alinsky Rule 5?  See how ridicule is used to change perceptions?  Is that a fair portrayal?  No, it is not; rather, it is disrespectful.  Similarly, is it a fair portrayal when the ALA says all "460 persons or groups ... believed that they should decide for others what they could read"?  No, it is not; rather, it is disrespectful.  Worse, since the ALA created the mechanism for filing complaints in the first place, its ridicule of everyone actually complying with its mechanism is particularly deceptive and disgraceful.

Does the US Supreme Court or BBW's founder have the same view as the ALA?  No.

The US Supreme Court and BBW's Creator Show the ALA is Wrong

The US Supreme Court has decided some cases that imply, if not show, that book challenges can be for legitimate reasons.

• US v. ALA:

"The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree."

• Board of Education v. Pico:

"Petitioners rightly possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries.  But that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner.  ....  Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas.  ....  On the other hand, respondents implicitly concede that an unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar."

Even BBW's founder and former four decade de facto ALA leader Judith Krug said books may be removed from school libraries in the right circumstances:

• "Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week," by Judith Krug, Curriculum Review, 46:1, Sep. 2006: 

"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there."

Certainly the ALA would not characterize the Justices of the US Supreme Court as censors, would it?  And Judith Krug is not a threat to freedom of speech and choice because she believes she can decide for others what they can read, is she?

No.  Similarly, people who file complaints in compliance with policy should not be mischaracterized by the ALA. 

Conclusion

The ALA directs local libraries to create materials selection policies.  It then ridicules anyone availing themselves of the policy calling them censors, threats to freedom of speech and choice, etc.  It does this intentionally with the propagandistic purpose of intimidating communities into stopping or preventing in the first place efforts by community members to seek compliance with library policies, legal cases, and common sense that legally protects children from inappropriate material.

Significantly, it uses "Banned Book Week" as the focal point for aiming the ridicule at the community.  The latest example of this can be seen in "2010 Banned Books Week - Top Ten Banned and Challenged Books for 2009" as discussed above.

The ALA cannot be trusted.  Its propagandistic efforts are designed to fool local communities and media into leaving children exposed to inappropriate material it would be legal to prevent.

Banned Books Week is the ALA's primary vehicle for pushing this propaganda.  While this may be my point of view, a simple look at the ALA policies and the latest BBW propaganda will make the point very clear.  On the one hand, "We take such concerns very seriously," while on the other, the ALA obviously does not take the concerns seriously:  "460 persons or groups ... believed that they should decide for others what they could read."  It's the perfect "parent trap."

In the end, isn't it the ALA that's deciding what others could read?  "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny.  ....  [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others."  Please comment below.


NOTE ADDED 9 JUNE 2011:

Look, the library community agrees it's not all black and white as the ALA's OIF tries to make it appear:

• "Surreptitious Censorship," by Will Manley, Will Unwound, 8 June 2011.

  Intellectual freedom is often presented as a black and white issue.  You are either a supporter of intellectual freedom or you are a censor.  There seems to be no middle ground.

NOTE ADDED 30 AUGUST 2011:

I am not the only one pointing out how the ALA labels everyone as the bad guy:

• "My Problem with Banned Books Week," by Rory Litwin, Library Juice, 28 August 2011:

  My problem with Banned Books Week is one that is probably shared by some conservatives, and it has to do with the loose definition of what a "banned book" is, and what a "challenged book" is.  ....  The Banned Books Week project, well-intended as it may be, is a propaganda exercise that fails to model good standards for democratic communication.
  
  ....
  
  School districts have policies in place for reviewing challenges to books on the basis of age-appropriateness.  Challenged books are reviewed and evaluated by committees that are charged with that responsibility, and then the school district makes an official decision regarding the book.  Regardless of what the school's decision turns out to be, regardless of its reasonableness or unreasonableness, and regardless of the objectivity or bias within the decision-making process in a specific case, all challenges to a book by a parent get counted as an attempt at book banning.
  
  Personally, I agree with intellectual freedom orthodoxy that says that one family should not have the right to determine what other students are taught, and this is part of what public education is.  But when a book is challenged and reviewed on the grounds of age-appropriateness, it is ultimately not the family that brought the challenge that makes the decision.  The decision is made by the educational institution itself.  ....  But the decision about whether a book should remain a part of the curriculum or not is ultimately made by the public institution that put the book in the curriculum in the first place, which means that book challenges happen as a part of a process that the institution puts in place in order to get feedback from the community on the curriculum.  ...."

NOTE ADDED 4 SEPTEMBER 2018:

This publication has been republished in full in another publication:

“Banned Books Week Is Propaganda.” Banned Books: At Issue Education. Ed. Marcia Amidon Lusted. New York, NY: Greenhaven Publishing, 2018. 34-39. Print.

I’m Chapter 5 of “Banned Books” published in 2018 by @GreenhavenPub:

“Banned Books Week Is Propaganda”https://t.co/Rqr47ouaTX

Annual @ALALibrary hoax called #BannedBooksWeek starts soon.#edchat #tlchat #parenting #LibrariesTransform

Buy book: https://t.co/o4GeguOxvL pic.twitter.com/a4GyY1CVDm

— Dan Kleinman (@SafeLibraries) September 4, 2018

.

Crying Censorship and the ALA; Don't Let the ALA Redefine Censorship

Stanley Fish has written an excellent article on censorship in The New York Times called "Crying Censorship." He points out that much of what people call "censorship" is really "judgment" that "has nothing to with freedom of expression," and is "not [a] blow[] against the First Amendment."

Specifically addressing libraries, Mr. Fish says, "Nor is it censorship when a library decides not to purchase a book or to withdraw a book from the shelves. You can still get it from Amazon.com. or buy it in Borders."

The American Library Association [ALA], on the other hand, pins almost its entire raison d'être on claiming to defend against "censorship" and First Amendment violations. For example, the so-called "Library Bill of Rights" includes, "Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment."

What is "censorship"? Stanley Fish defines censorship this way:

It is censorship when Germany and other countries criminalize the professing or publication of Holocaust denial. (I am not saying whether this is a good or a bad idea.) It is censorship when in some countries those who criticize the government are prosecuted and jailed. It was censorship when the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, stipulating that anyone who writes with the intent to bring the president or Congress or the government “into contempt or disrepute” shall be “punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.” Key to these instances is the fact that (1) it is the government that is criminalizing expression and (2) that the restrictions are blanket ones. That is, they are not the time, manner, place restrictions that First Amendment doctrine traditionally allows; they apply across the board. You shall not speak or write about this, ever. That’s censorship.

The ALA defines censorship in a totally different way, likely using a Saul Alinsky technique of redefining the language for political gain, and notice how people are now called "censors" repeatedly:

What Is Censorship?

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.

Source: "Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A," American Library Association, 29 May 2007.

The Stanley Fish and ALA definitions are almost diametrically opposed. Everyone knows the Stanley Fish one is correct. The question is, when will people expose the ALA definition as being false?

"The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others." That is from Dan Gerstein, an independent consultant and former communications director and senior strategist for Senator Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign. Stanley Fish would likely agree.

The take away from this is that when the ALA's false cries of censorship or First Amendment violations are being made in your town, do not let the ALA redefine the true definition of censorship. Do what the community knows is right and legal, not what the ALA wants or browbeats the community into. As former U.S. Department of Justice official Pat Trueman just said, "That's a ruse that the American Library Association, which is very pro-pornography and always files lawsuits against the federal government to try to keep pornography widely available, ...put[s] forward to scare libraries...."

Here is Stanley Fish's article reprinted for educational purposes:

"Crying Censorship", by Stanley Fish, The New York Times, 24 August 2008.

Salman Rushdie, self-appointed poster boy for the First Amendment, is at it again. This time he’s not standing up for free expression on his own behalf, but on behalf of another author, Sherry Jones, whose debut novel about the prophet Muhammad’s child bride had been withdrawn by Random House after consultants warned that its publication “could incite racial conflict.”

Random House is also Rushdie’s publisher, and his response to the news was to send an e-mail to The Associated Press. (I never thought of that; maybe I’ll try it myself.) It read, “I am very disappointed to hear that my publishers, Random House, have canceled another author’s novel because of their concerns about possible Islamic reprisals. This is censorship by fear and it sets a very bad precedent indeed.”

This little brouhaha has been widely reported and commentators have tended to endow it with large philosophical and political implications (the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005 and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh are often referenced). A story in The Times of London online edition describes it “the latest showdown between Islam and the Western tradition of free speech.” One respondent declared bravely, “I will never buy another book published by Random House,” and added, in a frenzy of patriotism, “We are Americans. We are free to choose what we want to read.”

Well, I guess we are, although that wouldn’t be my definition of what it means to be an American. It is also true, however, that Random House is free to publish or decline to publish whatever it likes, and its decision to do either has nothing whatsoever to do with the Western tradition of free speech or any other high-sounding abstraction.

Rushdie and the pious pundits think otherwise because they don’t quite understand what censorship is. Or, rather, they conflate the colloquial sense of the word with the sense it has in philosophical and legal contexts. In the colloquial sense, censorship occurs whenever we don’t say or write something because we fear adverse consequences, or because we feel that what we would like to say is inappropriate in the circumstances, or because we don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings. (This is often called self-censorship. I call it civilized behavior.)

From the other direction, many think it censorship when an employee is disciplined or not promoted because of something he or she has said, when people are ejected from a public event because they are judged to be disrupting the proceedings, or when a newspaper declines to accept an advertisement, rejects an op-ed or a letter, or fails to report on something others think important. But if censorship is the proper name for all these actions, then censorship is what is being practiced most of the time and is in fact the norm rather than the (always suspect) exception.

But censorship is not the proper name; a better one would be judgment. We go through life adjusting our behavior to the protocols and imperatives of different situations, and often the adjustments involve deciding to refrain from saying something. It’s a calculation, a judgment call. It might be wise or unwise, prudent or overly cautious, but it has nothing to with freedom of expression.

Judgment is also what employers exercise when they determine that something an employee has said or written so undermines the enterprise that it warrants dismissal. To the objection that such an action would amount to a curtailing of the employee’s First Amendment rights, the Supreme Court has answered (in Connick v. Myers, 1983) only if the speech in question were directed at a matter of public concern; otherwise, wrote Justice Byron White, “when close working relationships are essential to fulfilling… responsibilities, a wide degree of deference to the employer’s judgment is appropriate.”

Many thought it was censorship in 2004 when ABC refused to air an ad critical of President Bush during the Super Bowl, or when affiliates of the same network refused to show “Saving Private Ryan” out of a fear that under new regulations they would be subject to fines for presenting material containing profanity and graphic violence. Again, these decisions may have been ill-advised or pusillanimous, but they were not blows against the First Amendment and they were not censorship. No doubt the ad played on some other day, and no one is interdicting the showing of the movie, which is readily available in any number of venues. Nor is it censorship when a library decides not to purchase a book or to withdraw a book from the shelves. You can still get it from Amazon.com. or buy it in Borders.

But if none of these actions fits the definition of censorship, what does?

It is censorship when Germany and other countries criminalize the professing or publication of Holocaust denial. (I am not saying whether this is a good or a bad idea.) It is censorship when in some countries those who criticize the government are prosecuted and jailed. It was censorship when the United States Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, stipulating that anyone who writes with the intent to bring the president or Congress or the government “into contempt or disrepute” shall be “punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.” Key to these instances is the fact that (1) it is the government that is criminalizing expression and (2) that the restrictions are blanket ones. That is, they are not the time, manner, place restrictions that First Amendment doctrine traditionally allows; they apply across the board. You shall not speak or write about this, ever. That’s censorship.

So what Random House did was not censorship. (Some other press is perfectly free to publish Jones’s book, and one probably will.) It may have been cowardly or alarmist, or it may have been good business, or it may have been an attempt to avoid trouble that ended up buying trouble. But whatever it was, it doesn’t rise to the level of constitutional or philosophical concern. And it is certainly not an episode in some “showdown between Islam and the Western tradition of free speech.” Formulations like that at once inflate a minor business decision and trivialize something too important and complex to be reduced to a high-school civics lesson about the glories of the First Amendment.

*****

(Note: The original version of this essay inadvertently omitted the words “by fear” in the quoted e-mail. This has since been corrected.)

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company


NOTE ADDED 20 JULY 2013:

Three links were updated to provided archived versions of those documents no longer at their original links.