Fairfax "Adults-Only" Proposal
lee p.
----------------------------
Adults-Only Library Debate Starts; Fairfax Proposal Would Keep Some Books Away
From Children
(from the 9/17 Washington Post)
Diane Lewis says she's against censorship. But when Fairfax library
officials agreed this week to consider a plan to make books with "adult" themes
off-limits to young readers, the mother of two young children agreed with the
idea.
"When you are grown up, you are responsible enough to choose," Lewis, a
Clifton area resident, said yesterday as she checked out 14 children's books
from the Fairfax City library. "But when you are 13, 14, 15 years old, books on
topics like suicide, abortion, homosexuality should be available only with a
parent's permission."
But Gary and Diana LeFrancois, of Centerville, who have children ages 9 and
17, said the government in the Washington area's largest jurisdiction has no
business deciding what's best for their children to read.
"This smacks of Christian lopsidedness," Diana LeFrancois said. "The
ultra-right is louder than liberals. We are just going about our lives. They are
trying to mind our business. If this happens, what is next?"
As the debate over the Fairfax Library Board's vote to consider putting
adults-only reading rooms in the county's 22 libraries continued yesterday, it
was clear that the plan that could limit juveniles' access to hundreds of titles
had become a referendum on the responsibilities of parents and governments.
For some parents, it's a tough call. Several interviewed yesterday said they
are torn by the proposal, because they want their children protected from
harmful influences, but don't want government to be overly intrusive.
"I have conflicting feelings," said Annandale resident Elizabeth McIntyre,
who has two young children. "Values are formed within the home, and if we do our
job right, they should be able to make up their own minds. But I don't know how
graphic these books are."
If the conservative Christians and other parents who initiated the debate
have their way, books on topics such as sex, suicide and euthanasia would be
restricted, a move that civil libertarians say could lead to an unprecedented
level of censorship for a U.S. library system.
Those pushing the idea of adults-only collections say they would contain
books ranging from contempory literature such as Terry McMillian's "Waiting to
Exhale," a fictional account of four black women and their relationships with
men; to nonfiction such as "Dr. Ruth Talks to Kids," a children's primer on sex
and contraception.
Christian activist Karen Jo Gounaud, who encouraged Library Board members to
consider keeping some materials from juveniles, said she already has a long list
of books she believes should be placed in adults-only area of libraries.
Most of Stephen King's sly horror stories would be included, as well as
books such as "The Complete Guide to Safer Sex," "Dying with Dignity,
Understanding Euthanasia," "A Woman's Book of Choices: Abortion, Menstrual
Extraction, RU-486," and "Daddy's Roommate," a book about a gay male couple.
Gounaud said she is planning a slide show for county supervisors that will
show photographs from one library book - "The Long Road to Freedom: The Advocate
History of the Gay and Lesbian Movement." She said she considers the book
pornographic because it shows nude men.
Those under 18 would need permission from their parents to gain access to
such books. The library system has 226 titles alone on sexuality and
homosexuality, all of which Gounaud says should be in adults-only sections.
The arrangement would leave Fairfax County's library system, Virginia's
largest, with the most restrictive book policy in the nation, civil libertarians
say. The current proposal follows a push by many of the same activists to ban a
gay newspaper from county libraries. The efforts have made Fairfax one of the
nation's leading battlegrounds in a drive by Christian activists to force a
reconsideration of what materials children have access to in public schools and
libraries.
A school board in Oconee County, Ga., voted in July to ban all library
materials that mention explicit sex, but that decision was reversed in August
after massive public outcry.
In Fairfax yesterday, two members of the Board of Supervisors, which
appoints the Library Board, said they support having "adult-oriented"
collections. But others, including county board Chairman Thomas M. Davis III,
say it's a bad idea.
Davis said he is against it because it would be "unmanageable" and abridge
the obligations of parents, who should know what their children are reading.
"My kids go to the library, and I am comfortable with what they are coming
home with," said Davis, a Republican and father of three who is running for
Congress. "My biggest concern is that they get the books back on time."
But Supervisor Ernest J. Berger (R-Dranesville), who hopes to succeed Davis
if Davis defeats Rep. Leslie L. Byrne (D-Va.), said parents need the county's
help in protecting their children. Board Vice Chairman Elaine N. McConnell
(R-Springfield) agreed.
"The majority of parents in the county really object to their young children
being able to go to our libraries and have access to some very, very bad
material," Berger said. "This would give the parents a choice."
Like Lewis, several parents interviewed at county libraries yesterday echoed
Berger. They noted that Fairfax, the richest per capita county in the nation, is
largely made up of young families with children who moved to the area because of
its low crime rate, good schools and what several called a "family atmosphere."
But several teenagers disagreed, saying that subjects they encounter in a
library are no different from what they find elsewhere.
"Books are for everyone," said Tanya Achmetov, 16, a junior at McLean High
School. "Saying one group of people can't read them because they are immature
stereotypes them. ... Teenagers are going to learn about this stuff anyway;
whether they learn about it from friends or books is the question."
The current debate over what kinds of materials in public libraries should
be kept from children began in Fairfax in late 1992, when distribution of the
Blade, a Washington-based gay-oriented newspaper, started in county libraries.
Conservative activists - led by Springfield resident Gounaud - argued that
the newspaper encourages children to pursue what they consider to be the immoral
and unhealthy homosexual lifestyle.
The debate over what to do about the Blade is continuing, but at this week's
Library Board meeting, conservative member Robert J. Savage, after consulting
with Gounaud, decided to propose adults-only sections for libraries.
Savage said he is not sure how access to "adult" books would be limited.
One option less restrictive than a special adults-only collection would be a
prohibition on minors taking certain books out of the library without their
parents' permission, Savage said. Or the library might putting warning labels on
certain books. It's unclear who would decide what books would get warning
labels, or how they would do so.
---------------------------------
To voice your concerns about the proposal for "adults-only" sections,
you can reach the Administrative Offices of the Fairfax County Libraries
by calling (703)-222-3155 between 8am-4:30pm (ET) Monday through Friday.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| lpu...@csi.compuserve.com "The revolution will not |
| lpu...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu be televised, but it will |
+- http://(under construction) ----------------- be available online." ----+
Judith Eubank
lee p. <70004...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
>----------------------------
>
>Adults-Only Library Debate Starts; Fairfax Proposal Would Keep Some Books Away
>From Children
>(from the 9/17 Washington Post)
>
> Diane Lewis says she's against censorship. But when Fairfax library
>officials agreed this week to consider a plan to make books with "adult" themes
>off-limits to young readers, the mother of two young children agreed with the
>idea.
What these folks seem to forget is the real life of children (not to
mention teen agers). As if the only place a child could get hold of an
"objectionable" book were in a public library! Good Lord, what touching
innocence. What forgetfulness.
When I was in a junior high, a copy of Peyton Place circulated among all
my friends and acquaintances, who duly snickered over it. It was a very
well-worn copy, and it would conveniently fall open to the really racy
passages. Who knew where it had come from? The rumor was that it
belonged to someone's parents and had been happily filched.
Much better, I think, to take my parents' attitude and be a censorship
minimalist. The hyper-protective attitude tends to produce resentment
and a determination to taste the forbidden fruit. After all, it must be
delicious--why else would adults keep it to themselves?
Judith
Sharon Kim Goetz
Judith Eubank <jeu...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <35f6ri$38o$1...@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>,
>lee p. <70004...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>>Adults-Only Library Debate Starts; Fairfax Proposal Would Keep Some Books Away
>>From Children
>>(from the 9/17 Washington Post)
>
>mention teen agers). As if the only place a child could get hold of an
>"objectionable" book were in a public library! Good Lord, what touching
>innocence. What forgetfulness.
That, and the fact that quite a few people are still 17 when they start
college, and having to get a long-distance parental letter of permission
in order to borrow a book like _Daddy's Roommate_ from the local library
for a research paper is a little ridiculous, to me. Last summer, I took
a class for which I had to borrow several books from Berkeley Public
Library that dealt with families of mixed ethnicity in order to write a
paper. If the proposed censorship for children of books dealing with
sexuality goes through, what's to stop the extreme conservatives from
banning books that encourage children to believe that love sees no color?
Rick Saenz
(Sharon Kim Goetz) wrote:
Stick to the point, please. A group of parents wants certain books to be
available to their children only with their written permission; anyone who
can get their parents' written permission will have access to the books. If
you want to argue that this is beyond a parent's rights, or infringes on
the rights of children, or that the suggested approach will be an excessive
burden on the libraries of Virginia, fine. But the above arguments have
nothing to do with the issue.
Rick Saenz
Sharon Kim Goetz
Rick Saenz <sa...@bga.com> wrote:
>Stick to the point, please. A group of parents wants certain books to be
>available to their children only with their written permission; anyone who
>can get their parents' written permission will have access to the books. If
All right, then. I do think it's rather narrow to assume that when
individuals have passed their 18th birthday, they're automatically mature
enough to run their own lives. Conversely, it's really silly to say that
*all* people under 18 need to be sheltered from the horrors of sexuality.
Aside from the organizational problems of keeping track of who's who,
haven't the people pushing this considered the idea that people can
switch library cards as easily as they borrow a sibling's or older
friend's driver's license? Or is this supposed to be a "show proof of
permission each time you check out a questionable book" process? It's
pretty easy to forge parental permission for anything -- a few of my
friends did so regularly in high school in order to skip phys ed or to
excuse an absence.
Victor Eijkhout
> >Stick to the point, please. A group of parents wants certain books to be
> >available to their children only with their written permission; anyone who
> >can get their parents' written permission will have access to the books. If
>
> All right, then. I do think it's rather narrow to assume that when
> individuals have passed their 18th birthday, they're automatically mature
> enough to run their own lives. Conversely, it's really silly to say that
> *all* people under 18 need to be sheltered from the horrors of sexuality.
Let's see. I must have been 15 when the English teacher recommended
`Portnoy's Complaint'. I can't say that I *didn't* learn anything
from that book, but to say that the subject matter was that much
of a revelation would be a misrepresentation. And it led me to read
everything by Philip Roth I could find in the library ...
--
Victor Eijkhout ................................ `Corporal, any enemy aircraft
Department of Computer Science ...................... on the screen?' `No sir,
University of Tennessee ................... but I'm picking up two people in a
Knoxville TN 37996 ......................sitting position at 35,000 feet [...]'
+1 615 974 8298 ................. [a stand-up comic, about the Stealth Bomber]
http://www.netlib.org/utk/people/VictorEijkhout.html
Rick Saenz
Sharon Kim Goetz <gthi...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>All right, then. I do think it's rather narrow to assume that when
>individuals have passed their 18th birthday, they're automatically mature
>enough to run their own lives.
Your 18th birthday isn't the day you automatically mature enough to
run your own life; ou may have been mature enough long before, or you
may have a long way to go. Your 18th birthday is the day when parents
lose the right to run your life for you.
Good parents run their children's lives because the children aren't
competent to do it themselves, and they try to do it in a way that
will train their children for the job of running their own lives.
There is an eighteen-year transition from total control to no control,
whith different responsibilities passed on at different times.
>Conversely, it's really silly to say that *all* people under 18 need
>to be sheltered from the horrors of sexuality.
The "horrors of sexuality" are some of the responsibilities that must
be passed on at some point. Each individual parent should be allowed
to decide when it is appropriate to do so, and it isn't unreasonable
to ask some small amount of society's help in exercising this sort of
control.
The Fairfax county proposal (as I read it) says not that all people
under 18 must be sheltered, but only that all people under 18 would
need their parent's permission to have access to certain material. For
those who are mature enough and their parents know it, there shouldn't
be a problem. For those who are mature enough but their parents don't
agree, they will have to chalk up one more injustice to their parents'
account and wait until they are 18.
>Aside from the organizational problems of keeping track of who's who,
>haven't the people pushing this considered the idea that people can
>switch library cards as easily as they borrow a sibling's or older
>friend's driver's license? Or is this supposed to be a "show proof of
>permission each time you check out a questionable book" process? It's
>pretty easy to forge parental permission for anything -- a few of my
>friends did so regularly in high school in order to skip phys ed or to
>excuse an absence.
I doubt that the parents who are raising liars and forgers are much
worried about keeping adult material out of their children's hands.
Some of us, thought, are trying to raise kids who would be seriously
deterred by having to do something like using a fake ID or forging a
proof of permission.
Rick Saenz
Dale Keiger
(Sharon Kim Goetz) wrote:
> All right, then. I do think it's rather narrow to assume that when
> individuals have passed their 18th birthday, they're automatically mature
> enough to run their own lives. Conversely, it's really silly to say that
> *all* people under 18 need to be sheltered from the horrors of sexuality.
--
I agree. However, I support the principle of parents having some say in
what their children are allowed to read. Not all parents will choose
wisely. Some will be too narrow-minded, some will fail to recognize the
maturity in their own kids, some will pass on bigotry, etc. So what? No
rule will work perfectly, and parents who use control over access to books
to pass on bigotry and other forms of narrow-mindedness will, I suspect,
do that no matter what the rules. I'm not a parent, but were I a parent
I'd resent anyone telling me I can't exercise influence on what my child
reads or encounters. And I say this as someone staunchly opposed to
censorship, staunchly in favor of increased government funding for arts
and libraries and public broadcasting, and staunchly opposed to the
religious right. It comes down to this, for me: government should not
intrude on parents' attempts to raise their children according to the
values they deem worthy. I just don't see the hardship or the harm in this
Fairfax proposal. Most kids 18 and younger, or say 16 and younger, don't
get the contents of provocative books anyway. As kids, I think, the main
point is that they learn to read and get in the habit of reading. If they
do that, as adults they'll come across all the books they couldn't or
weren't ready to read when they were 12 or 14 or 16. I think some of the
opposition to this measure has been strident, insensitive, and arrogant.
Not yours, Sharon, but some.
--
> Aside from the organizational problems of keeping track of who's who,
> haven't the people pushing this considered the idea that people can
> switch library cards as easily as they borrow a sibling's or older
> friend's driver's license? Or is this supposed to be a "show proof of
> permission each time you check out a questionable book" process? It's
> pretty easy to forge parental permission for anything -- a few of my
> friends did so regularly in high school in order to skip phys ed or to
> excuse an absence.
--
True, but again, so? It won't keep every kid from reading books his or her
parent disapproves of, but it'll help some parents do what they believe is
right, and will support the principle that government should not dictate
how I raise my kids. I don't believe the administrative problems will be
all that large, frankly. I suspect most parents won't change a thing.
Most of the arguments against this measure seem to have come from people
concerned about kids not being allowed access to works such as Catcher in
the Rye, Huckleberry Finn, The Color Purple, etc. What if the works in
question were tracts from the Aryan Nation? Books purporting to prove the
Holocaust was a hoax? Slasher novels? Would there be the same outcry from
the same people? I wonder.
My bottom line is this: I personally think that kids (my kids, if I had
any) should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to read most everything they're
curious about. If I disapproved of the ideas contained in certain books,
or the contents, I'd want to influence my child's thinking by trying to
make sure that he or she read with skepticism and good critical judgment.
But I wouldn't ban books in my house. If the school or the library refused
to provide access to books my child really wanted to read, I'd provide
copies myself. But, and this is my sticking point, I don't want the
government taking choices away from me about other aspects of child
rearing, and thus feel morally obligated to extend the same courtesy to
parents who hold different views from mine. No one in government, or in
education, is smart enough to tell the rest of us how to raise our kids.
So, though I'd work around it were I parent with a bright inquisitive kid,
I'd support the Fairfax measure on principle.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Shoshana Edwards
: > >What these folks seem to forget is the real life of children (not to
: > >mention teen agers). As if the only place a child could get hold of an
: > >"objectionable" book were in a public library! Good Lord, what touching
: > >innocence. What forgetfulness.
: >
: > That, and the fact that quite a few people are still 17 when they start
: > college, and having to get a long-distance parental letter of permission
: > in order to borrow a book like _Daddy's Roommate_ from the local library
: > for a research paper is a little ridiculous, to me. Last summer, I took
: Stick to the point, please. A group of parents wants certain books to be
: available to their children only with their written permission; anyone who
: can get their parents' written permission will have access to the books. If
: you want to argue that this is beyond a parent's rights, or infringes on
: the rights of children, or that the suggested approach will be an excessive
: burden on the libraries of Virginia, fine. But the above arguments have
: nothing to do with the issue.
: Rick Saenz
It seems to me they were right to the point. The point being that
children are human beings also. And they will get their books and their
ideas wherever they can. Better to be sure they are getting the
"correct" information instead of distorted garbage in back alleys.
By the way, I don't think that entries in r.a.b. discussions need
censorship cops.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Books From Bree - br...@netcom.com
"Rat!" he found breath to whisper, shaking. "Are you afraid?"
"Afraid? murmured the Rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love.
"Afraid! Of Him? O, never, never! And yet--and yet--O Mole, I am afraid!"
Wind in the Willows, K. Graham
Karen Gorman
Jim C. Clark <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, gthi...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Sharon Kim Goetz) says:
>
>>In article <saenz-210...@slip194.bga.com>,
>>Rick Saenz <sa...@bga.com> wrote:
>>>available to their children only with their written permission; anyone who
>>>can get their parents' written permission will have access to the books. If
>>
>
>certain books to be available to EVERYONE'S children only with parental
>permission.
>
>And just who is it anyway who gets to decide for everyone what get put in
>this 'adults-only' category???
>
>Isn't anyone else as appalled by this as I am?
>
Yes. I read the issue the same way you did- that a group of parents (or
maybe not necessarily parents) wanted certain books placed out of reach
for everyone's children who had access to that library. I don't have the
original post in front of me, but that was my impression.
My thoughts: If you are a parent (and I am not BTW), and you have no idea
what your children are reading, isn't it time that you took more interest
in your children's lives? My parents always had a general idea of what I
read, and Mom still steers my younger siblings away from material that she
feels is inappropriate. I see this Fairfax movement as censorship and book
banning. It is more subtle than making a bonfire, but it is the same issue.
Rick Saenz
Karen Gorman <gor...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
>In article <Cwqvv...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
>Jim C. Clark <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Actually, it would be more accurate to say that a group of parents wants
>>certain books to be available to EVERYONE'S children only with parental
>>permission.
>>
>>And just who is it anyway who gets to decide for everyone what get put in
>>this 'adults-only' category???
>>
>>Isn't anyone else as appalled by this as I am?
>>
>
>Yes. I read the issue the same way you did- that a group of parents (or
>maybe not necessarily parents) wanted certain books placed out of reach
>for everyone's children who had access to that library. I don't have the
>original post in front of me, but that was my impression.
You both misread the proposal. Here are the pertinent sections:
Those under 18 would need permission from their parents to gain
access to such books. ...
Savage said he is not sure how access to "adult" books would be
limited. One option less restrictive than a special adults-only
collection would be a prohibition on minors taking certain books out
of the library without their parents' permission, Savage said. Or
the library might putting warning labels on certain books. It's
unclear who would decide what books would get warning labels, or how
they would do so.
This discussion reminds me of the joke about the fellow who lost his
wallet in a dark alley but went looking for it under a nearby
streetlamp because the light was better there. Some of you want this
to be an issue of censorship really badly, so badly that you are
trying to make it one by pretending that it is, or by misrepresenting
the facts. Perhaps you think the discussion would be more interesting
if it were in fact an issue of censorship. Perhaps you think it would
be easer to win the argument. Or perhaps you find the accusation of
censorship such a useful bludgeon that you feel free to bring it to
bear, whether or not the facts fit your accusation. Whatever the case,
wishful thinking won't make it so.
Rick Saenz
Robert Teeter
asking society's help in raising their children and not letting government
interfere in the raising of their children. Does anybody else see the
contradiction here?
Government help *is* government interference. Sometimes that's
appropriate, but not in this case. When you're asking the government to
help you by keeping certain books away from your children, you're asking
the government to interfere in the raising of all children in the
community. Because some parents are over-anxious about what their
children read, is that reason for them to ask the government to make it
difficult for *all* children to read certain books? And how will these
"certain books" be chosen?
And why is this protective attitude only applied to books? Maybe
all children should need a note to buy snacks from vending machines on
government property in order to protect the diabetic kids. Maybe the
government should require all children to have a note to cross public
streets or ride public transit in order to protect the kids who can't
handle such things.
It seems to me that libraries with open policies are not
"interfering" in anybody's raising of their children. It's up to the
parents to teach their children to make the right choices when they
are out in the world and not ask the government to interfere with *all*
parents.
Robert Teeter
Jim C. Clark
In a previous article, gthi...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Sharon Kim Goetz) says:
>In article <saenz-210...@slip194.bga.com>,
>Rick Saenz <sa...@bga.com> wrote:
>>Stick to the point, please. A group of parents wants certain books to be
>>available to their children only with their written permission; anyone who
>>can get their parents' written permission will have access to the books. If
>
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that a group of parents wants
Rick Saenz
Robert Teeter <rte...@netcom.com> wrote:
> The people in favor of the Fairfax proposal have talked about
>asking society's help in raising their children and not letting government
>interfere in the raising of their children. Does anybody else see the
>contradiction here?
I assume you are referring to the following passage in the article:
For some parents, it's a tough call. Several interviewed yesterday
said they are torn by the proposal, because they want their
children protected from harmful influences, but don't want
government to be overly intrusive.
"I have conflicting feelings," said Annandale resident Elizabeth McIntyre,
who has two young children. "Values are formed within the home,
and if we do our job right, they should be able to make up their
own minds. But I don't know how graphic these books are."
I'd say that a more accurate representation of the situation is that
the parents pushing the proposal are inviting government
"interference," while some other parents can't decide whether the
benefits of government involvment outweigh the possible drawbacks. I
don't see a contradiction.
> Government help *is* government interference. Sometimes that's
>appropriate, but not in this case. When you're asking the government to
>help you by keeping certain books away from your children, you're asking
>the government to interfere in the raising of all children in the
>community. Because some parents are over-anxious about what their
>children read, is that reason for them to ask the government to make it
>difficult for *all* children to read certain books? And how will these
>"certain books" be chosen?
Government is involved in the raising of children in countless ways,
many of which I'm sure you would support. You may be right that in
this particular case government involvement is not warranted, but I
think you need to make your case. Is it too much to ask that parents
who don't mind allowing their children free access to these materials
sign a piece of paper saying so?
> It seems to me that libraries with open policies are not
>"interfering" in anybody's raising of their children. It's up to the
>parents to teach their children to make the right choices when they
>are out in the world and not ask the government to interfere with *all*
>parents.
They aren't interfering in any active sense, but their existence makes it
more difficult for parents to control what their children are exposed
to. Fifty years ago it was reasonable for a parent to tell a bored
child to "go outside and find something to do;" these days it would be
tantamount to child abuse, due almost entirely to the "open policies"
which have been adopted in the meantime. The burden of protecting
children has gone from being a responsibility of society at large to
being almost entirely the sole burden of a given child's parents.
Many people like it better this way. That doesn't make it right.
Rick Saenz
Dale Keiger
<rte...@netcom.com> wrote:
> > Government help *is* government interference. Sometimes that's
> >appropriate, but not in this case.
Taxpayers pay for the library, I presume. What's wrong with the taxpayers
of Fairfax trying to make the library more responsive to community needs,
or at least what they perceive as a community need? If this is a
disgruntled minority trying to impose its will on the majority (not how I
see it, but a valid perspective), all the majority has to do is vote them
down. If the majority does nothing and lets the minority impose its will,
the majority needn't search far for whom to blame.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Mike Thayer
[deleted articles from others, and then his response:]
>You both misread the proposal. Here are the pertinent sections:
>
> Those under 18 would need permission from their parents to gain
> access to such books. ...
>
> Savage said he is not sure how access to "adult" books would be
> limited. One option less restrictive than a special adults-only
> collection would be a prohibition on minors taking certain books out
> of the library without their parents' permission, Savage said. Or
> the library might putting warning labels on certain books. It's
> unclear who would decide what books would get warning labels, or how
> they would do so.
>
>This discussion reminds me of the joke about the fellow who lost his
>wallet in a dark alley but went looking for it under a nearby
>streetlamp because the light was better there. Some of you want this
>to be an issue of censorship really badly, so badly that you are
>trying to make it one by pretending that it is, or by misrepresenting
>the facts. Perhaps you think the discussion would be more interesting
>if it were in fact an issue of censorship. Perhaps you think it would
>be easer to win the argument. Or perhaps you find the accusation of
>censorship such a useful bludgeon that you feel free to bring it to
>bear, whether or not the facts fit your accusation. Whatever the case,
>wishful thinking won't make it so.
>
>Rick Saenz
I hate to say this, and it's overly cliched, but "if it walks like a duck, and
it quacks like a duck...."
My reading of the proposal (as you have stated above) is that people under the
age of 18 are not capable of making their own decisions about which books they
may sign out from the library. They must get "a note from their parents".
Period.
I'm not sure how this cannot be construed as censorship--what are you going to
do about the 17-year old seniors in high school (or who are first year college
students) who are clearly mature enough to make their own decisions? Where do
you draw the line? 18? 16? 12? It is patently obvious to me, in following
this thread, that there is a group of parents who feel that they know _not only_
what is "best" for their children (even if they are 17) and what is "allowed",
but also what is "best" for EVERY OTHER PARENT'S children. This is ridiculous.
Yes, maybe censorship is not too strong a word in this case, hm?
Mike Thayer
Robert Teeter
to certain people. That is censorship plain and simple. One can claim
it's not censorship or that it's for a good cause, but wishing won't
make it so. Since censorship is considered wrong in this society,
would-be censors never admit that that's what they are.
Some -- not all -- of the people pushing this proposal have an
axe to grind. They are trying to reverse what they see as a permissive
attitude in society. They are starting with an obvious hot issue --
children reading about sex -- but I wouldn't be surprised if they go
further, assuming the proposal goes through.
After all, religion is another important subject about which we
wouldn't want children to get the wrong ideas. What if Jewish, Muslim,
and atheist kids had to get a note from their parents to read about
their own traditions?
Some will object that this is farfetched, that we have freedom of
religion in this country. Well, we have freedom of speech, too, but
the backers of the Fairfax proposal think it doesn't apply to children.
If children's freedom to read can be abridged by the government, so can
their freedom of religion. (Note that I say "by the government." Parents
have every right to monitor what their children read, and they should do
so without government interference.)
Robert Teeter
Rick Saenz
Mike Thayer <tha...@odysseus.uchicago.edu> wrote:
I hate to say this, and it's overly cliched, but "if it walks like a
duck, and it quacks like a duck...."
My reading of the proposal (as you have stated above) is that people
under the age of 18 are not capable of making their own decisions
about which books they may sign out from the library. They must get
"a note from their parents".
Period.
The proposal says nothing about whether people under the age of
eighteen are capable of making their own decisions about which books
to check out; it says only that some children won't be allowed to
check out certain books because their parents won't permit them to.
I'm not sure how this cannot be construed as censorship--what are
you going to do about the 17-year old seniors in high school (or who
are first year college students) who are clearly mature enough to
make their own decisions? Where do you draw the line? 18? 16? 12?
Just because you can't solve a problem cleanly and completely doesn't
excuse you from having to deal with it; just because I might be wrong
when I make a decision about how to raise my child doesn't excuse me
from having to make that decision.
It is patently obvious to me, in following this thread, that
there is a group of parents who feel that they know _not only_ what
is "best" for their children (even if they are 17) and what is
"allowed", but also what is "best" for EVERY OTHER PARENT'S
children. This is ridiculous.
The group of parents in question may feel any number of things, but
all they've asked is that some of the materials in the library be set
aside and that each child's parents decide whether they want their
children to have access to those materials. This is not ridiculous.
Yes, maybe censorship is not too strong a word in this case, hm?
Not too strong a word; just the wrong word. Every time I see it
raised, I reach for my desk dictionary, and the definition is the same
every time:
censorship: The act or process of censoring
censor: n. A person authorized to examine printed or other materials
and remove or suppress what he considers objectionable.
v. To examine and expurgate.
These materials will be made available to every adult and to those
children who can get their parents' permission; nothing is being
removed, suppressed, or expurgated.
Rick Saenz
Rick Saenz
Some will object that this is farfetched, that we have freedom of
religion in this country. Well, we have freedom of speech, too, but
the backers of the Fairfax proposal think it doesn't apply to
children. If children's freedom to read can be abridged by the
government, so can their freedom of religion. (Note that I say "by
the government." Parents have every right to monitor what their
children read, and they should do so without government
interference.)
I think you're mistaken in assuming that children have a legal right
to read freely; as far as I know, it is the parent who has the right
to restrict (not just monitor) what their child reads.
Rick Saenz
Dale Keiger
tha...@odysseus.uchicago.edu (Mike Thayer) wrote:
> My reading of the proposal (as you have stated above) is that people under the
> age of 18 are not capable of making their own decisions about which books they
> may sign out from the library. They must get "a note from their parents".
--
So? If it's my child, and that's how I feel, who are you, or the
government, to tell me different?
I concede that I haven't read the proposed measure, so I'm speaking of
concept here, not this specific measure. But in concept, a measure that
gives those parents concerned with what their children may check out of
the library a measure of control over that cannot, in my view, be
construed in any way as censorship. After all, the books aren't being
removed from the library, nor is their publication inhibited, nor is their
circulation among adults inhibited, nor are they being burned. No one is
being prosecuted for distributing them. No government board is approving
them for publication, nor demanding changes in order for them to be
published.
I would, were I a parent, want some influence over which movies my child
could see, and which television shows, and which videos. Even which
friends. Why not which books? I write stories that I wouldn't want a child
of mine to read. I wouldn't consider it censorship if another parent felt
the same way. I might think they're foolish in their literary judgment,
but not out of bounds in making it.
If this measure is worded so that *no* child can check out books without
parental permission, I think it's a badly worded measure, needlessly
cumbersome. The proper approach, I think, is for those parents with
concerns to notify the library. If the children of those parents wanted to
check out books from the "adult" section or whatever, they'd need
permission from their parents. All other kids would be unaffected. What's
the big deal? Crying censorship over an issue like this works to weaken
our position when we cry censorship over a genuine case of it.
I'm not naive. I realize the motives of those propounding this issue might
be, at bottom, the removal of all books from the library that they
consider objectionable. I would strenuously oppose any such measure. But
as I understand it, this measure doesn't do that.
I think some of the correspondents on this issue are lumping all kids
together. There's a whopping difference between a mature 18-year-old and
an immature 10-year-old. "People under 18" covers a lot of ground. You
better believe a lot of "people under 18" aren't capable of making all
their own decisions. That's why they have parents.
--
> Where do you draw the line? 18? 16? 12?
--
*You* don't draw the line for me, that's the point. I draw it where I see
fit as a parent.
--
> It is patently obvious to me, in following this thread, that there is a
group of parents who feel that they know _not only_ what is "best" for
their children (even if they are 17). . .
--
What, 17 is some sort of magical age? I know some 17-year-olds who are
complete idiots. I wouldn't trust them with a wad of gum. And what's with
putting "best" in quotes? Were I a parent with a 17-year-old, you'd better
believe I'd know what's best. I've got the life experience that equips me
to know that. By virtue of having paid attention for 40 years, I'm
smarter, wiser, and more experienced in life than any teenager. It's my
responsibility as a parent to pass that on. I won't always be right, but
I'll be right more often than my child.
--
> Yes, maybe censorship is not too strong a word in this case, hm?
--
Just the wrong word.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Sharon Kim Goetz
It's unfortunately (IMO) true that children don't have a legal right to
read freely. As a matter of fact, minors have very few legal rights;
most of the rights they don't have are designed to protect them legally
(for instance, if a minor is raped, it's theoretically easier to
prosecute the adult who instigated it because it's illegal to have sex
with a minor). So yes, it's the parent's right to restrict what his or
her child reads. This *does NOT* equate to "it's the government's right
to 'help' all parents -- including those who don't ask for said help --
restrict what their child reads."
If you just want an easy way out, don't have a child in the first place.
Rick Saenz
Sharon Kim Goetz <gthi...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
So yes, it's the parent's right to restrict what his or her child
reads. This *does NOT* equate to "it's the government's right to
'help' all parents -- including those who don't ask for said help --
restrict what their child reads.
The parents who don't want this help only need to sign a piece of
paper saying so.
If you just want an easy way out, don't have a child in the first place.
By this, I assume you mean that there is some "hard way" that allow
concerned parents to exercise sufficient control over their children's
reading without bothering the rest of society. Could you tell us what
you have in mind?
Rick Saenz
Sharon Kim Goetz
Dale Keiger <d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu> wrote:
>I would, were I a parent, want some influence over which movies my child
>could see, and which television shows, and which videos. Even which
>friends. Why not which books? I write stories that I wouldn't want a child
Sure. But if you were a parent, you'd have some influence over what your
child was reading *anyway* without government intervention. Quite a few
children have enough respect for their parents -- at the age at which
parents would be terribly concerned about their children's innocence,
anyway (as opposed to when parents tend to start backing off a little) --
to follow most of the rules. I mean, a child who would think twice about
forging parental permission to be allowed to borrow a book might also
consider why their parents didn't want them reading the book in the first
place.
(Aside from that, though, as a person who has a pretty good relationship
with pretty protective/strict parents, I'm sorry, but there are some
aspects that parents will never be able to control no matter what they
want the government to do.)
>What, 17 is some sort of magical age? I know some 17-year-olds who are
>complete idiots. I wouldn't trust them with a wad of gum. And what's with
No, it's a border age to 18. I know a 16-year-old who behaves more
responsibly and maturely in many ways than some of the 23-year-olds on this
campus. I also know a lot of little snots in high school who think
they're all grown up. 17 isn't a magical age, but conceding the point
that a measure like this has to draw a line *somewhere*, I don't think 18
is the place to do so.
>putting "best" in quotes? Were I a parent with a 17-year-old, you'd better
>believe I'd know what's best. I've got the life experience that equips me
>to know that. By virtue of having paid attention for 40 years, I'm
>smarter, wiser, and more experienced in life than any teenager. It's my
>responsibility as a parent to pass that on. I won't always be right, but
>I'll be right more often than my child.
Your pardon, sir, but if that's your opinion, maybe it's just as well you
don't have a 17-year-old. I don't think you and s/he would have a very
healthy relationship. A person's experiences guarantee only that they
can give advice in situations exactly identical to those they've lived
through -- so you'd need to understand your child completely. Most
people never understand themselves completely, much less another person
(even if they've watched that person grow up). <shrug> I'm going off on
a tangent, so my apologies for this last bit.
Sharon Kim Goetz
> If you just want an easy way out, don't have a child in the first place.
>By this, I assume you mean that there is some "hard way" that allow
>concerned parents to exercise sufficient control over their children's
>reading without bothering the rest of society. Could you tell us what
>you have in mind?
That isn't quite what I meant. I was using "easy way out" to refer to
having the government provide a buffer so that parents who didn't want to
review what their child was bringing home from the library wouldn't have
to take the time to do so....
Even with the measure passed, I don't think parents will end up with the
"sufficient control" they might expect the proposal to give them.
Basically, I'm against the idea of instituting what will be inefficient
legislation to make some parents feel better. (To me, it isn't
censorship until they take the books out of general circulation, period.)
The proposal is a marked increase in bureaucratic red tape at a time when
libraries and school districts are getting state-level budget cuts. I
don't recall reading that the Virginia legislature had agreed to give the
libraries more funding in order to cope with the results of the proposal.
LadyJane
> In article <1994Sep27....@midway.uchicago.edu>,
> tha...@odysseus.uchicago.edu (Mike Thayer) wrote:
>
>> My reading of the proposal (as you have stated above) is that people under
>> the age of 18 are not capable of making their own decisions about which
>> books they may sign out from the library. They must get "a note from their
>> parents".
> --
> So? If it's my child, and that's how I feel, who are you, or the
> government, to tell me different?
>
that of everyone else's.
> I concede that I haven't read the proposed measure, so I'm speaking of
> concept here, not this specific measure. But in concept, a measure that
> gives those parents concerned with what their children may check out of
> the library a measure of control over that cannot, in my view, be
> construed in any way as censorship. After all, the books aren't being
> removed from the library, nor is their publication inhibited, nor is their
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> circulation among adults inhibited, nor are they being burned. No one is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So it doesn't matter that their distribution among non-adults *is* being
inhibited? Censorship is still censorship, whoever it applies to.
>
> I would, were I a parent, want some influence over which movies my child
> could see, and which television shows, and which videos. Even which
> friends. Why not which books? I write stories that I wouldn't want a child
> of mine to read. I wouldn't consider it censorship if another parent felt
> the same way. I might think they're foolish in their literary judgment,
> but not out of bounds in making it.
Yes; you and every other parent have that right, but that doesn't mean that
the government has to legislate it. Quite apart from anything else, there is
no way to restrict everything parents might object to, on moral, religious, or
whatever grounds.
> --
>> Where do you draw the line? 18? 16? 12?
> --
> *You* don't draw the line for me, that's the point. I draw it where I see
> fit as a parent.
Precisely. This is why such things should be left to *parents*, not to
governmental agencies.
--Jane
John Berg
Change the proposal to say that any parent may make a list of books
which the library MAY allow their specifically identified child to
check out. At the same time require the libraries to issue a library
card only to children under 18 who have written permission from their
parents and a parent developed reading list unless this right is waived.
Parents, of course, may update the list to reflect new books.
I think this addresses most of the points on both sides.
John
>>>>A group of parents wants certain books to be
>>>>available to their children only with their written permission; anyone who
>>>>can get their parents' written permission will have access to the books. If
>>>
>>
>>Actually, it would be more accurate to say that a group of parents wants
>>certain books to be available to EVERYONE'S children only with parental
>>permission.
>>
>>And just who is it anyway who gets to decide for everyone what get put in
>>this 'adults-only' category???
>My thoughts: If you are a parent (and I am not BTW), and you have no idea
>what your children are reading, isn't it time that you took more interest
>in your children's lives? My parents always had a general idea of what I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Berg Sea Room, At the intersection of Newsletter 1
5 W Glebe Rd, B12 water, wood, wind, and sails. Available on
Alexandria VA 22305 PO Box 298, request. Email
P00...@psilink.com Long Lake MN 55356 postal address.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Robert Teeter
: Taxpayers pay for the library, I presume. What's wrong with the taxpayers
: of Fairfax trying to make the library more responsive to community needs,
: or at least what they perceive as a community need? If this is a
: disgruntled minority trying to impose its will on the majority (not how I
: see it, but a valid perspective), all the majority has to do is vote them
: down. If the majority does nothing and lets the minority impose its will,
: the majority needn't search far for whom to blame.
That's why we have a Bill of Rights: because some rights are so
important that not even a majority should be able to take them away. If
I want to espouse the dangerous doctrine of Teeterism, I have that right
even if 240 million Americans believe it will lead to the downfall of
civilization.
There's always a good reason to want to censor books. Resist
the temptation.
Robert Teeter
Richard Caley
In article <saenz-210...@slip194.bga.com>, Rick Saenz (rs) writes:
rs> Stick to the point, please. A group of parents wants certain books to be
rs> available to their children only with their written permission
If that were all they wanted, they could just walk donw the street and
talk to the librarian (or logical equivalent[*]). As I understand it,
they want to stop other people's children from having access to
certain books.
rs> anyone who can get their parents' written permission will have
rs> access to the books.
Why should they have to do this (rememberring that it isn't the
parents of the children in question who have the problem with these
books, but some load of busibodies)?
rs> If you want to argue that this is beyond a parent's rights
It's well beyond the rights of _other_people's_parents_ I would have
thought. Whether I'd say it was beyond parents rights would depend on
when the libraries recognise people as adult. I got an adult ticket at
about 13 and I'd be not-too-unhappy at the idea that 12 year old's
reading was controled by _their_ parents. The idea that 16 year olds
would be limited to childrens books, what they can buy for themselves
and what they can borrow from friends is somewhat ridiculous, to say
the least. If nothing else, it guarantees a diet of crap and
pornography.
[*] For instance, they could write on their child's library membership
card, or whatever, ``please don't lend sexually explicit material on this
ticket without asking me first''.
Robert Teeter
: In article <rteeterC...@netcom.com>,
: Robert Teeter <rte...@netcom.com> wrote:
: Rick Saenz
Just as I said (see above). The parents have the right (even
responsibility) to monitor or restrict what their own children read. They
do not have the right to restrict what other people's children read, nor
to ask the government to do their restricting for them.
Robert Teeter
Rick Saenz
Richard Caley <r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
As I understand it, they want to stop other people's children from
having access to certain books.
You understand wrong. This may be because you didn't see the original
article about the proposal, so I have emailed you a copy. You will see
when you read it that some parents have asked that certain materials
be made available to children only with their parent's permission.
The mechanism for obtaining permission isn't specified; it could end
up being explicit (a child would need signed permission to access the
material) or implicit (a child would have access to the material
unless their parents had signed a piece of paper requesting
otherwise).
Nothing in the article suggests that these parents want anything other
than some sort of mechanism to help prevent their own children from
checking out certain materials.
Rick Saenz
Rick Saenz
John Berg <p00...@psilink.com> wrote:
Change the proposal to say that any parent may make a list of books
which the library MAY allow their specifically identified child to
check out.
This is an excellent extension of the original proposal, at least for
the parents who want to control their children's reading. The need to
develop such lists might actually lead to some discussion of what is
actually in some of these books and what reasons one might have for
wanting to keep them out of the hands of one's children. I'm hoping
that at some point this discussion might turn to those reasons.
For me, sexually explicit material is a minor worry; I think my wife
and I can raise our kids so that they will be able to handle such stuff
by the time it means anything at all to them. But there are many other
ideas that are flat-out dangerous for the unprepared mind, and there
is only a finite amount of time, energy and opportunity for a parent
to prepare that mind. Controlling a child's reading is one way of
managing the process.
Rick Saenz
p.s. I doubt that the library reading-list idea is workable;
administering it would probably be a tremendous burden on
the library. But I still like it.
LadyJane
> A simple and more direct approach:
>
> Change the proposal to say that any parent may make a list of books
> which the library MAY allow their specifically identified child to
> check out. At the same time require the libraries to issue a library
> card only to children under 18 who have written permission from their
> parents and a parent developed reading list unless this right is waived.
> Parents, of course, may update the list to reflect new books.
>
> I think this addresses most of the points on both sides.
How do you propose to make up a list of all the books your child can take out?
This seems to me to be a rather tall order for what I assume is a sizeable
library.
--Jane
Jeff Inman
them to read. The more you don't want them to read some book, the
more I hope they have the guts and the brains to find a way to go read
it for themselves and figure out for themselves whether you know what
you are doing or not. There's no safe path into good adulthood. I
don't hope your kids get mortal wounds. But some scars might make
them stronger. Adventures into danger are the only way they can
learn. You do want them to learn, don't you? You would do them a
better service by teaching them how to operate in danger, than in
preserving them from all threats.
Jeff Inman
--
j...@santafe.edu
"He did not expect a simple goodness from himself or a simple
anything anymore, but a minor integrity would have been nice."
Rick Saenz
Jeff Inman <j...@tyuonyi.santafe.edu> wrote:
I want your children to have access to the books that you don't want
them to read. The more you don't want them to read some book, the
more I hope they have the guts and the brains to find a way to go read
it for themselves and figure out for themselves whether you know what
you are doing or not.
If I'm right that some books are a danger to the unprepared mind--
which you seem to be willing to grant, given your comments below
about danger--then before they have a chance to know I was right the
damage will have been done. The guts and brains they used to find
their way may end up splattered across the pavement.
There's no safe path into good adulthood. I don't hope your kids
get mortal wounds. But some scars might make them stronger.
Adventures into danger are the only way they can learn. You do want
them to learn, don't you? You would do them a better service by
teaching them how to operate in danger, than in preserving them from
all threats.
I'm sure you don't hope that my kids get mortal wounds, because I
don't think you give a damn whether they do or not. Adventures into
danger are hardly the only way a child can learn; they are, though, a
good way to increase the risk of being mortally wounded.
Rick Saenz
DeaconMac
> Nothing in the article suggests that these parents want anything other
> than some sort of mechanism to help prevent their own children from
> checking out certain materials.
They already have such a mechanism. They can instruct their children as to
what they may and may not read. They can monitor what their children read.
They can accompany their children to the library and guide them in
choosing reading material. They can forbid their children going to the
library at all.
They made the decision to be parents knowing that it is no easy chore.
They shouldn't expect the rest of the world to do their job.
-- Deacon Maccubbin
LAMBDA RISING BOOKSTORES
Every Gay & Lesbian Book in Print - Videos, Music, & Gifts, Too
FREE Mail Order Catalog - Out-of-Print Book Search Service
E-mail address: lambda...@his.com
DeaconMac
members of the Fairfax County Library Board have now voiced opposition to
the proposal to restrict children's access to books with "adult themes."
The rabidly conservative County Board of Supervisors has also gone on
record as opposing the scheme, saying it would be a "serious infraction by
government of parental responsibility."
Among the books targeted by supporters of the failed proposal were titles
dealing with non-Christian religions, homosexuality, abortion rights,
euthanasia, and other "adult topics."
Dale Keiger
Teeter) wrote:
> That's why we have a Bill of Rights: because some rights are so
> important that not even a majority should be able to take them away.
--
If people wanted to prevent *me,* an adult, from taking out certain books
from the library, I'd be right in line with you, Robert, on constitutional
grounds. But I fail to see how parents asking for a little procedural help
regarding what their kids can check out constitutes (pardon me) a
constitutional crisis.
To me, the most telling argument in these postings against the proposed
Fairfax measure has been that parents want the government to do what they
ought to be doing themselves. To the extent that that's true, I side with
those posters arguing against the measure. I guess (as I reason this out
through this debate) what I've been responding to with some bafflement is
the concept that this is censorship or a denial of the fundamental right
of a nine-year-old to read whatever he or she wants regardless of what his
or her parents think.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Dale Keiger
> Just as I said (see above). The parents have the right (even
> responsibility) to monitor or restrict what their own children read. They
> do not have the right to restrict what other people's children read, nor
> to ask the government to do their restricting for them.
--
Robert,
In this, we agree. My sense of the ordinance as described by posters to
this newsgroup was that it would do the former more than the latter. So
long as it represents parents setting the parameters for their own
children and enlisting the library's assistance in helping to enforce
those parameters (or at least not undercut their efforts), I would support
it. When it becomes other parents telling me what *my* kids can read, or
the government deciding what the reading list shall be, then I'm with the
critics in this newsgroup. My argument is in favor of parents getting a
little help from a public institution that they've paid for; not for
government or a group of parents to tell me how to raise my kids. That's
not an easy distinction to maintain, I'll admit. But people need to try.
All the distinctions crucial to democracy are hard to maintain, often hard
to ascertain. Gotta do it anyway.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Rick Saenz
DeaconMac <deac...@aol.com> wrote:
They already have such a mechanism. They can instruct their children as to
what they may and may not read. They can monitor what their children read.
They can accompany their children to the library and guide them in
choosing reading material. They can forbid their children going to the
library at all.
Imagine that we're not discussing libraries at all, but backyard
swimming pools. I can instruct my children as to how to behave
properly around a swimming pool. I can monitor their behavior. I can
accompany they to the pool and supervise their activity. I can forbid
them from going near the swimming pool without me. Now tell me this:
if I don't lock the pool when I'm not around, can I take comfort in
the fact that I did all those other things when I come home and find
my dead kid floating in the pool?
Now imagine we're talking about a public swimming pool. In an era of
tight budgets, it occurred to someone that the community could save a
lot of money by getting rid of lifeguards, etc., and just left the
pool sitting open for those who wanted to use it. Someone else points
out that unrestricted, unsupervised access would be dangerous for
children, and that we should at least lock the pool and issue keys.
Is it reasonable for me to object to this because carrying a key is
too much hassle?
They made the decision to be parents knowing that it is no easy chore.
They shouldn't expect the rest of the world to do their job.
It used to be a job shared between parents and society as a whole. But
I'll grant you that we've progressed far past that point.
Rick Saenz
Dale Keiger
> I'm glad we've reached some level of agreement here. [etc.]
‹
Robert,
A well-reasoned, well-articulated post. I, too, have doubts about the
practicality of implementing any such ordinance. And I question whether it
would really make a difference. I suspect the kids that parents should be
most worried about aren't frequenting the library, anyway.
What I've meant to respond to, mostly, is what I thought to be some
muddled reasoning on the part of some people, and some careless
emotion-laden rhetoric. Then I found myself getting annoyed with what
seemed to me to be an attitude of "just leave the kids alone because
parents will only screw them up anyway." I see the wreckage all over this
city of kids whose parents left them alone. And I encounter daily far too
many older kids and college students who can't reason worth a damn or make
responsible decisions for themselves because no one taught them how. I
posted a few things in the midst of my own annoyance, a few things that
perhaps I should have written and then committed to the ozone. Oh well.
When I was a kid, I had a card that had a large black "J" on it, to
distinguish it from adult cards that had an "A." I don't know at what age
you qualified for an "A" card, but you were supposed to able to check out
books from the juvenile section only if you had a "J" card. This was a
problem for me. In the fourth grade I tested as reading at the 11th grade
level, and I soon outgrew the "J" books. But this was a small-community
branch library which had a wise librarian who got to know a lot of the
kids and let me and others check out whatever we wanted (though he might
have drawn the line at some books, he never refused me). Perhaps it's
inevitable that we now have ordinances and constitutional issues and all
the rest, but it's too bad, don't you think? With a little common sense,
some tolerance, and a few wise and caring librarians, it could all be
handled with a lot less fuss and a lot more concern for the kids.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Karen Gorman
>... But in concept, a measure that
>gives those parents concerned with what their children may check out of
>the library a measure of control over that cannot, in my view, be
>construed in any way as censorship. After all, the books aren't being
>
Well, Dale, if the proposal did indeed read the way you mention above, I
would have to agree with you 100%. However, if you read other posts by
Rick Saenz, you will see that...
>
>If this measure is worded so that *no* child can check out books without
>parental permission, I think it's a badly worded measure, needlessly
>cumbersome. The proper approach, I think, is for those parents with
>concerns to notify the library. If the children of those parents wanted to
>check out books from the "adult" section or whatever, they'd need
>permission from their parents. All other kids would be unaffected. What's
... the proposal actually reads this way, "*no* child can check out books
without parental permission" as you state. Without even using the "evil"
C-word, we see that this proposal could be reworded, that it sounds like
the restriction is not coming from individual [sets of] parents. Of
*course* parents have a right to restrict their children's reading material.
I would want this right if I were a parent, BUT I would not want the library
(or other parents) imposing a restriction on my children, or forcing me to
sign some note in order to lift the restriction. If I call the library and
tell them that _my_ children are not allowed to borrow certain books, that
is one thing. If the library is telling _me_ that my children cannot
borrow certain books, well then they have taken away my right to raise my
children as I see fit.
[rest of Dale's arguments deleted for space considerations]
>--
>Dale Keiger
>d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
-Karen
gor...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
Mike Thayer
>In article <1994Sep27....@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>Mike Thayer <tha...@odysseus.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> I hate to say this, and it's overly cliched, but "if it walks like a
> duck, and it quacks like a duck...."
>
> My reading of the proposal (as you have stated above) is that people
> under the age of 18 are not capable of making their own decisions
> about which books they may sign out from the library. They must get
> "a note from their parents".
>
> Period.
>
>The proposal says nothing about whether people under the age of
>eighteen are capable of making their own decisions about which books
>to check out; it says only that some children won't be allowed to
>check out certain books because their parents won't permit them to.
>
Um, ok, I'll agree with this assessment of the "proposal"; however, I still am
bothered by the last part of your statement above. And I still don't see how
picking and choosing the "certain books" is not censorship. See below.
> I'm not sure how this cannot be construed as censorship--what are
> you going to do about the 17-year old seniors in high school (or who
> are first year college students) who are clearly mature enough to
> make their own decisions? Where do you draw the line? 18? 16? 12?
>
>Just because you can't solve a problem cleanly and completely doesn't
>excuse you from having to deal with it; just because I might be wrong
>when I make a decision about how to raise my child doesn't excuse me
>from having to make that decision.
>
Well, dammit, then pay attention to what your kids are reading! Go with them
to the library and watch what they're interested in signing out! Just because
you don't trust your kids to make the "right decisions", that gives you no right
to assume that no one else does!
> It is patently obvious to me, in following this thread, that
> there is a group of parents who feel that they know _not only_ what
> is "best" for their children (even if they are 17) and what is
> "allowed", but also what is "best" for EVERY OTHER PARENT'S
> children. This is ridiculous.
>
>The group of parents in question may feel any number of things, but
>all they've asked is that some of the materials in the library be set
>aside and that each child's parents decide whether they want their
>children to have access to those materials. This is not ridiculous.
>
> Yes, maybe censorship is not too strong a word in this case, hm?
>
>Not too strong a word; just the wrong word. Every time I see it
>raised, I reach for my desk dictionary, and the definition is the same
>every time:
>
> censorship: The act or process of censoring
>
> censor: n. A person authorized to examine printed or other materials
> and remove or suppress what he considers objectionable.
> v. To examine and expurgate.
>
>These materials will be made available to every adult and to those
>children who can get their parents' permission; nothing is being
>removed, suppressed, or expurgated.
>
>Rick Saenz
According to the OED:
Suppress, v.
d To withhold or withdraw from publication (a book or writing); to
prevent or prohibit the circulation of.
Can we agree that these books in question are trying to be suppressed, or are
we going to play these semantics games forever?
I apologize for my heat on this subject, but I am really sick and tired of
parents complaining about what their kids "might read/see/hear", I suppose
"by accident". If you're so concerned, rip out your TV, don't let them go to
movies, and don't let them in the libraries; you should do the picking of "good"
books for them. Whatever happened to parents taking responsibility for their
own children? Why must it always be placed in the lap of "government" to make
those decisions?
And yes, before anyone asks, I'm not a big fan of movie ratings, record "label-
ing", or the drinking age. May as well be (more or less) consistent...:)
Mike Thayer
Rick Saenz
Karen Gorman <gor...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
... I would not want the library (or other parents) imposing a
restriction on my children, or forcing me to sign some note in order
to lift the restriction.
This is the clearest statement so far of a reoccuring objection to the
proposal, namely that parents shouldn't have to sign a note to grant
their children access to these materials. Dale K. has pointed out that
things would work about the same if it parents had to sign a note to
have access restricted, and I doubt that any parent who wanted to
control their children's reading would object to signing one; I know I
wouldn't. Is this the only reason we're having this discussion, i.e.
if it had been the original proposal, would it have passed by without
comment?
If the library is telling _me_ that my children cannot borrow
certain books, well then they have taken away my right to raise my
children as I see fit.
Even if there was no way to grant them access at all, I don't see how
this is so. Could you elaborate?
Rick Saenz
Karen Gorman
>In article <36crk8$a...@tierra.santafe.edu>,
>
>I'm sure you don't hope that my kids get mortal wounds, because I
>don't think you give a damn whether they do or not. Adventures into
>danger are hardly the only way a child can learn; they are, though, a
>good way to increase the risk of being mortally wounded.
>
Excuse me?? How can a *book* be an "adventure into danger"? Now, I'm sure
that you will come up with some outrageous example like "Nazi Cross-dressing
Skinheads Will Control the World in the Year 2000" by Idi Amin, and say how
this can warp a poor defenseless child's mind, so before you do, please first
tell us about the dangers of some books. Then we can all have a hearty
laugh and get back to our lives.
>Rick Saenz
-Karen
gor...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
Mike Thayer
>In article <1994Sep27....@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>tha...@odysseus.uchicago.edu (Mike Thayer) wrote:
>
>I concede that I haven't read the proposed measure, so I'm speaking of
>concept here, not this specific measure. But in concept, a measure that
>gives those parents concerned with what their children may check out of
>the library a measure of control over that cannot, in my view, be
>construed in any way as censorship. After all, the books aren't being
>removed from the library, nor is their publication inhibited, nor is their
>circulation among adults inhibited, nor are they being burned. No one is
>being prosecuted for distributing them. No government board is approving
>them for publication, nor demanding changes in order for them to be
>published.
>
But a "governmental" board IS approving them for circulation within a particular
group, namely persons under the age of 18. If we only consider censorship to be
that which includes "burning books" and inhibiting _publication_, then hey, I
agree, there's no "censorship" at all. However, I don't usually think of
censorship in that fashion: I consider making resources (literary/artistic)
unavailable except by parental fiat censorship.
>I would, were I a parent, want some influence over which movies my child
>could see, and which television shows, and which videos. Even which
>friends. Why not which books? I write stories that I wouldn't want a child
>of mine to read. I wouldn't consider it censorship if another parent felt
>the same way. I might think they're foolish in their literary judgment,
>but not out of bounds in making it.
>
>If this measure is worded so that *no* child can check out books without
>parental permission, I think it's a badly worded measure, needlessly
>cumbersome. The proper approach, I think, is for those parents with
>concerns to notify the library. If the children of those parents wanted to
>check out books from the "adult" section or whatever, they'd need
>permission from their parents. All other kids would be unaffected. What's
>the big deal? Crying censorship over an issue like this works to weaken
>our position when we cry censorship over a genuine case of it.
>
In this I think we agree. My problem is not that individual parents want to
keep control over their children's reading material, but that they wish to place
some control over all children's reading material, namely by making a distinct-
ion between "adult" and "children's" books. As a blatant example, where would
"Heather Has Two Mommies" be kept? Clearly, this is written as a children's
book; however, I suspect it would be placed in the "adult" section. The problem
with drawing a distinction of this type is that the biases that would be intro-
duced are not simply those of "too much violence", "too much sex", etc. It
also seems to have a component of religious bias, which IMHO is unacceptable.
I would, however, be more than willing to be proved wrong on the "Heather"
example, though; if that's not really what this parental group is after, then
I remove this particular reservation.
>I'm not naive. I realize the motives of those propounding this issue might
>be, at bottom, the removal of all books from the library that they
>consider objectionable. I would strenuously oppose any such measure. But
>as I understand it, this measure doesn't do that.
>
See above--I am not sure I share your optimism.
>I think some of the correspondents on this issue are lumping all kids
>together. There's a whopping difference between a mature 18-year-old and
>an immature 10-year-old. "People under 18" covers a lot of ground. You
>better believe a lot of "people under 18" aren't capable of making all
>their own decisions. That's why they have parents.
>--
Right, and a lot of "people under 18" can. Your point?
>> Where do you draw the line? 18? 16? 12?
>--
>*You* don't draw the line for me, that's the point. I draw it where I see
>fit as a parent.
>--
Ok, then I ask you, where would YOU draw the line? And how exactly would you
decide which books are appropriate?
>> It is patently obvious to me, in following this thread, that there is a
>group of parents who feel that they know _not only_ what is "best" for
>their children (even if they are 17). . .
>--
>What, 17 is some sort of magical age? I know some 17-year-olds who are
>complete idiots. I wouldn't trust them with a wad of gum. And what's with
>putting "best" in quotes? Were I a parent with a 17-year-old, you'd better
>believe I'd know what's best. I've got the life experience that equips me
>to know that. By virtue of having paid attention for 40 years, I'm
>smarter, wiser, and more experienced in life than any teenager. It's my
>responsibility as a parent to pass that on. I won't always be right, but
>I'll be right more often than my child.
>--
Guess what--I agree with you, but again, I am saddened by the thought that you,
raising a 17-year-old, would think that there are some books that are "not
appropriate" for your child. What, exactly, would these books be?
[deletia]
Mike Thayer
Rick Saenz
movies, and don't let them in the libraries; you should do the
picking of "good" books for them. Whatever happened to parents
taking responsibility for their own children? Why must it always be
placed in the lap of "government" to make those decisions?
In fact, I am concerned enough to have already ripped out my TV, to
have restricted movie attendance, and to have done the picking of
"good" books. I have had to do all these things not because I think
television, movies or books are inherently evil or dangerous; I have
had to do them because people no longer care much what sorts of things
find their way into television shows, movies or books.
Like many other things, libraries used to be safe places for kids.
They aren't anymore, though, and I'm willing to grant that it is
probably wishful thinking that they will ever be again. At least not
in an age where signing a permission slip is an intolerable
infringement on one's rights.
Rick Saenz
p.s. The TV isn't actually ripped out, it is in the kids' playroom
hooked to a VCR, next to a bunch of Disney videotapes and other
children's videotapes.
Rick Saenz
First, let me point out that I was responding to an earlier post which
claimed that adventures into danger were the only way to learn.
Second, I've never read Idi Amin's book, so I can't comment on it. But
I can give you an example of a dangerous book. When Goethe published
_The Sorrow of Young Werther_, which describes the troubled life and
eventual suicide of its young here, Europe experienced a rash of
teenage suicides. See _The Savage God_ by A Alvarez for descriptions
of this and other outbreaks of unbridled romanticism. I can't promise
you a hearty laugh, but it is worthwhile reading.
Rick Saenz
Dale Keiger
<j...@tyuonyi.santafe.edu> wrote:
> There's no safe path into good adulthood. I don't hope your kids
> get mortal wounds. But some scars might make them stronger.
> Adventures into danger are the only way they can learn.
Baloney. They can also learn by the guidance, supervision, and protection
of those who have gone before them, assuming those who have gone before
them have sense enough to realize they owe their kids a watchful,
compassionate upbringing. I work in Baltimore. Come here and try to win
converts to the idea that "adventures into danger are the only way they
can learn." We have kids dead every week from their "adventures into
danger." Try some of your piety on their mothers.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Dale Keiger
(DeaconMac) wrote:
> They made the decision to be parents knowing that it is no easy chore.
> They shouldn't expect the rest of the world to do their job.
‹
Deacon,
In this I agree with you, though I'm sympathetic to parents who'd like a
little help from some of their public institutions.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Jeff Inman
>j...@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) wrote:
>> There's no safe path into good adulthood. I don't hope your kids
>> get mortal wounds. But some scars might make them stronger.
>> Adventures into danger are the only way they can learn.
>Baloney. They can also learn by the guidance, supervision, and protection
>of those who have gone before them, assuming those who have gone before
>them have sense enough to realize they owe their kids a watchful,
>compassionate upbringing. I work in Baltimore. Come here and try to win
>converts to the idea that "adventures into danger are the only way they
>can learn." We have kids dead every week from their "adventures into
>danger." Try some of your piety on their mothers.
Too bad you weren't there, holding the kid's hands as they crossed the
street, telling them never ever to take drugs, never ever to have
unprotected sex, answering all their questions, telling no lies, some
candy for your pocket, all bundled up and wise. In fact, perhaps it's
better not to tell them about danger at all, since that might just
give them ideas, arouse their uninformed curiousity and all. Better
to just lock them in their rooms (with a Nice Book) until they are 21.
Or maybe 30.
The point, in case you are capable of considering this issue, is that
instructions are helpful and appropriate and necessary, but they don't
actually consititute wisdom unless experience allows them to be
grasped in practice, and experience is prone to make mistakes, and
thus is dangerous. Without mistakes, kids will be sterile. With
mistakes, some kids will be lost. That is very sad. One would think
that parents would try to make their kids competent. 'nuf said.
Robert Teeter
: p.s. I doubt that the library reading-list idea is workable;
: administering it would probably be a tremendous burden on
: the library. But I still like it.
That's the problem with all of these proposals. They are
emotionally satisfying, but as a practical matter, impossible. (Aside
from the constitutional problems discussed in the other thread.)
Robert Teeter
Robert Grumbine
>In article <369t4f$g...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Sharon Kim Goetz <gthi...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> So yes, it's the parent's right to restrict what his or her child
> reads. This *does NOT* equate to "it's the government's right to
> 'help' all parents -- including those who don't ask for said help --
> restrict what their child reads.
>
>The parents who don't want this help only need to sign a piece of
>paper saying so.
Which leaves it that the default is that the kids don't have access
to the books. Which further means that people like the parents trying
to restrict access to the books have a list of those people who disagree
with them (the list of parents who have granted permission), a handy
way to select people for harassment, among other things.
As it is a subset of parents who wish to have the library limit their
children's reading, let those parents who want that done pay for
the added service.
An aside, from the postings here it seems that the age limit is being
put at 18. This is somewhat peculiar, to me, as when I was growing up
there was a children's card and and adult's card; but, the split was
at 13 (much more reasonable IMHO), and posessing the children's card
limited how many, not which, books you could take out at a time.
--
Bob Grumbine rm...@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Dale Keiger
Inman) wrote:
> Too bad you weren't there, holding the kid's hands as they crossed the
> street, telling them never ever to take drugs, never ever to have
> unprotected sex, answering all their questions, telling no lies, some
> candy for your pocket, all bundled up and wise. In fact, perhaps it's
> better not to tell them about danger at all, since that might just
> give them ideas, arouse their uninformed curiousity and all. Better
> to just lock them in their rooms (with a Nice Book) until they are 21.
> Or maybe 30.
>
> The point, in case you are capable of considering this issue, is that
> instructions are helpful and appropriate and necessary, but they don't
> actually consititute wisdom unless experience allows them to be
> grasped in practice, and experience is prone to make mistakes, and
> thus is dangerous. Without mistakes, kids will be sterile. With
> mistakes, some kids will be lost. That is very sad. One would think
> that parents would try to make their kids competent. 'nuf said.
‹
Jesus, Jeff, is it necessary to be so snide, dismissive, and sarcastic? If
this is your idea of how to respond to a reasoned, albeit impassioned
debate, perhaps you need exposure to a few more books yourself.
Are we to take it that you think concern for the welfare of kids should be
ridiculed? You've certainly ridiculed my position, while you were busy
misrepresenting it. Did I suggest locking anybody in a room or shielding
them from life's harsh realities? No, I did not, and if it's all the same
to you, I'd prefer not to have my arguments fabricated by somebody else.
I grasp the point, though that capability on my part will apparently
surprise you. Of course instructions don't take the place of experience.
That doesn't obviate the necessity of the instruction, or guidance, or
supervision. If a car were to speed around the corner and head for you,
which would you prefer, that I yank you out of the way, or stand by and
let you learn from the experience of the collision? I would owe it to my
children to exercise some care over what they were exposed to and when. I
wouldn't always make the right decision, but I'd owe them the attempt.
There would be times when I'd let them make painful mistakes because that
would be the best way for them to learn. And there'd be stuff I'd be
helpless to prevent or shield them from. So? Because I can't do it all
with perfect wisdom I should surrender them to the tender mercies of
people with your seeming attitude?
You've done nothing to persuade me I'm wrong, but it's always bracing to
be insulted first thing in the morning.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Dale Keiger
(Karen Gorman) wrote:
> ... the proposal actually reads this way, "*no* child can check out books
> without parental permission" as you state. Without even using the "evil"
> C-word, we see that this proposal could be reworded, that it sounds like
> the restriction is not coming from individual [sets of] parents. Of
> *course* parents have a right to restrict their children's reading material.
> I would want this right if I were a parent, BUT I would not want the library
> (or other parents) imposing a restriction on my children, or forcing me to
> sign some note in order to lift the restriction. If I call the library and
> tell them that _my_ children are not allowed to borrow certain books, that
> is one thing. If the library is telling _me_ that my children cannot
> borrow certain books, well then they have taken away my right to raise my
> children as I see fit.
‹
Sharon,
I think you are absolutely right in all respects in what you say above. I
hope I've never sounded like I approved of the government or any parents
group telling me what my kids could read; I might have sounded that way,
but I didn't mean to. I just support another position that could be viewed
as a counter: that neither the government nor a parents group has the
right to tell me that I have to let my kids read library books I don't
approve of. I'll admit to an inconsistency here: while I think parents
should be free to restrict circulation of library books (but please note,
only to *their* kids, not to mine or yours), I have a real problem with
parents (especially creationists) dictating school curricula. Don't ask me
to reconcile that, because I can't.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Irina Rempt
(av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote on Re: Fairfax "Adults-Only" Proposal
> Actually, it would be more accurate to say that a group of parents
wants
> certain books to be available to EVERYONE'S children only with parental
> permission.
>
> And just who is it anyway who gets to decide for everyone what get put in
> this 'adults-only' category???
>
> Isn't anyone else as appalled by this as I am?
Yes, I am for one. Our daughter is only eight months old (and
interested in books already) but I hope that when she's old enough to go to
the library by herself we'll have taught her to tell the difference
between books that are worth reading and books that are not. Note that
it's not important what a book is *about* - if she's interested in a
subject, she should be able to read about it at her own level - but how
the subject matter is treated.
Still, if she wants to read _Mein Kampf_ or Beavis and Butthead, let
her go ahead - as long as she knows that it's garbage, and why.
Irina
--
GTW/O d+(-)@ H++() s:+ !g p?@ !au>0 !a36? w(+) v++ C++$ U--- L
N++ K W++$ M-- V+ -po+ Y+>++ t++>+ !5 !j R+++ G''' !tv
b+++ !D !B(--) e-* u*(**) h----(++) f+ r+++ n@ x?
Irina Rempt
Re: Fairfax "Adults-Only" Proposal
> In fact, I am concerned enough to have already ripped out my TV, to
> have restricted movie attendance, and to have done the picking of
> "good" books.
Poor kids. Obviously you don't trust them. Have you ever
realized that they may not trust you? Do you have so little
faith in your own upbringing, that you think you haven't
taught them to make their own decisions?
Robert Teeter
: Second, I've never read Idi Amin's book, so I can't comment on it. But
: I can give you an example of a dangerous book. When Goethe published
: _The Sorrow of Young Werther_, which describes the troubled life and
: eventual suicide of its young here, Europe experienced a rash of
: teenage suicides. See _The Savage God_ by A Alvarez for descriptions
: of this and other outbreaks of unbridled romanticism. I can't promise
: you a hearty laugh, but it is worthwhile reading.
In your previous post to this, you said people no longer care
what gets into libraries, movies, and television, so you have to
impose restrictions. Apparently, they didn't care 200 years ago.
When was the golden age when children could be perfectly safe from
all corrupting influences?
(BTW, don't send your children to Socrates' school if you
know what I mean.)
Robert Teeter
The point being (for the humor-impaired) that you can't depend on
institutions public or private to raise your children the way you
see fit. If you have concerns -- as any parent should -- you must
exercise them yourself.
Richard Caley
In article <36brco$i...@edwin.bga.com>, Rick Saenz (rs) writes:
rs> Nothing in the article suggests that these parents want anything other
rs> than some sort of mechanism to help prevent their own children from
rs> checking out certain materials.
It says that the books are to be put in an adults-only section. That
sounds to me as if the default is heavily no access.
I Think the proposal has to be considered extremely suspect. When
someone obviously loopy proposes something, I think it is reasonable
to approach it under the assumption that what is being proposed is
probably not very sensible.
And someone who thinks that pictures of nude men constitute
pornography is definitly somewhere beyond eccentric.
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
David R. Conrad
(I missed the beginning of this thread; if anyone would email me the text
of the proposal under discussion I would be very grateful.)
There's another issue that I'm surprised no one has raised. In most of
the libraries I've been in it is possible to browse nearly the entire
collection and read almost any of it *without* checking the material out.
For instance, at one nearby public library there is a main section, an AV
room, a research section, an adult room and a juvenile section. The kids
aren't allowed in the adult room, but they are in the others. (The only
requirement of the research section is near absolute silence.)
There are both Juvenile and Adult library cards, but even if the kids are
only allowed to check out items from the juvenile section they can still
read any item in the main or research section as long as they do it in the
library.
Admittedly, most of the really 'objectionable' material is kept in the
adult room, but I'll bet that there's plenty in the main section that some
parents would object to their young children reading!
* * *
What I would do, as if anyone cares, is something like this:
If a child has a parent on hand when applying for a library card, or if a
parent applies on behalf of the child, that parent is asked about their
policy on what their child can read and a notation[*] is made on the card.
If a child applies alone, a postcard is sent to the parent informing them
that a card has been issued, and asking them for their position. In the
interim a notation on the card indicates that no parent was present when
the card was issued.
There would be no hard rules about who could check out what, but a
librarian would know how the parent felt when faced with a 13-year-old
who was trying to check out _Lady_Chatterly's_Lover_.
Some people have objected to having to give their express permission to
allow their kids to check out anything, but it is easy enough to ask them
how they feel, and surely you don't object to the policy that no one be
allowed to check out *anything* without a library card?
The only remaining problem would be the kids whose parents hadn't yet
responded to the query, but at least the librarian would know that the
parents hadn't responded. If it was quite some time since the card was
issued then they might send another card in case the first was lost in
the mail. After several cards I suppose they could assume the parents
didn't care too strongly!
[*] There would have to be a simple system for the notation, since a
long statement of the parent[s]'s feelings wouldn't fit and probably
wouldn't get read each time by the librarian. Perhaps a five-point
scale: 1 - Object strongly, 2 - Object, 3 - Neutral, 4 - Only object to
very explicit materials, 5 - Allow everything. Perhaps two scales, one
for sex and another for violence?
Regards,
David R. Conrad
--
ab...@detroit.freenet.org / David_...@mts.cc.wayne.edu
"No his mind is not for rent to any god or government." -- Rush
Tommy Che Vorst
>had to do them because people no longer care much what sorts of things
>find their way into television shows, movies or books.
>Rick Saenz
>p.s. The TV isn't actually ripped out, it is in the kids' playroom
> hooked to a VCR, next to a bunch of Disney videotapes and other
> children's videotapes.
Interesting choices - I am certain that the one thing I might consider
keeping _out_ of my kids' film library is anything produced by Disney. I
cannot accept his films consider the mercenary philosophy from which
they are made.
My children's Jungle Book will be Kipling, and their Pooh will be Milne.
~~~~
Tommy Vorst "I've been raising up my hands drive another nail in
tvo...@cc.umanitoba.ca just what GOD needs one more victim"
Grad School almost over.... -Tori Amos, 'Crucify'
Evolve or Perish
Drive-by shootings. Crack. AIDS. _The Catcher in the Rye_.
Our Children Must Be Protected.
b r e t t
--
Richard Caley
rs> Like many other things, libraries used to be safe places for kids.
When?
Ok, if you live in an area benighted enough to have had nothing but
bawlderized versions of all the books in the library I suppose you
could argue they were safe from sex, violence etc, though also from
literature and education.
Werther has been in public libraries for a long time:-).
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Rick Saenz
Richard Caley <r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk wrote:
In article <36f7qh$q...@lia.bga.com , Rick Saenz (rs) writes:
rs> Like many other things, libraries used to be safe places for kids.
When?
because adult material was segregated and controlled, but because the
kind of stuff you find on the shelves today just wasn't available back
then.
Ok, if you live in an area benighted enough to have had nothing but
bawlderized versions of all the books in the library I suppose you
could argue they were safe from sex, violence etc, though also from
literature and education.
Like I said, almost all of the material I'm concerned about has been
made available in public libraries since the early 60s, and almost all
of it has been produced since then. I invite you to make the case that
literature and education didn't exist before that.
Werther has been in public libraries for a long time:-).
But the materials I'm worried about haven't been. (No smiley.)
Rick Saenz
Jeff Inman
>First, let me point out that I was responding to an earlier post which
>claimed that adventures into danger were the only way to learn.
I said that.
>Second, I've never read Idi Amin's book, so I can't comment on it. But
>I can give you an example of a dangerous book. When Goethe published
>_The Sorrow of Young Werther_, which describes the troubled life and
>eventual suicide of its young here, Europe experienced a rash of
>teenage suicides.
Okay. Let's suppose that you are a small-town librarian, with a
limited budget (redundant, I know) and you have 200 parents that have
signed slips requesting that their children not be allowed to check
out "that suicide book by Gertie", thanks partly to a petition
circulated by that Saenz fellow who wanted to alert them to the
potential dangers of this book. Meanwhile, you have one request,
written in green crayon, for a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".
Questions:
(a) Which one would you order?
(b) what would you be muttering under your breath while dropping the
order into the mail?
Answers:
(a) ehteoG
(b) "yrarbil DOOG a eb ot gniog sihT"
Jeff Inman
>Jesus, Jeff, is it necessary to be so snide, dismissive, and sarcastic? If
>this is your idea of how to respond to a reasoned, albeit impassioned
>debate, perhaps you need exposure to a few more books yourself.
Perhaps you're right.
>I grasp the point, though that capability on my part will apparently
>surprise you. Of course instructions don't take the place of experience.
>That doesn't obviate the necessity of the instruction, or guidance, or
>supervision. If a car were to speed around the corner and head for you,
>which would you prefer, that I yank you out of the way, or stand by and
>let you learn from the experience of the collision? I would owe it to my
>children to exercise some care over what they were exposed to and when.
If the car is actually a book, one should let people be run over by
it. They'll either learn from the experience or be figuratively
killed. Either way, society benefits.
> I
>wouldn't always make the right decision, but I'd owe them the attempt.
>There would be times when I'd let them make painful mistakes because that
>would be the best way for them to learn.
These are two different courses of action. I agree that both are
valuable. Which books do you think are too dangerous to risk plan
number 2?
> And there'd be stuff I'd be
>helpless to prevent or shield them from. So? Because I can't do it all
>with perfect wisdom I should surrender them to the tender mercies of
>people with your seeming attitude?
By all means, you should protect them from people with my seeming
attitude. You should also definitely slaughter any predators you
encounter. I would do the same thing, by the way.
>You've done nothing to persuade me I'm wrong, but it's always bracing to
>be insulted first thing in the morning.
Glad I could help.
Rick Saenz
Jeff Inman <j...@tyuonyi.santafe.edu> wrote:
Okay. Let's suppose that you are a small-town librarian, with a
limited budget (redundant, I know) and you have 200 parents that have
signed slips requesting that their children not be allowed to check
out "that suicide book by Gertie", thanks partly to a petition
circulated by that Saenz fellow who wanted to alert them to the
potential dangers of this book. Meanwhile, you have one request,
written in green crayon, for a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".
Questions:
(a) Which one would you order?
(b) what would you be muttering under your breath while dropping the
order into the mail?
Answers:
(a) ehteoG
(b) "yrarbil DOOG a eb ot gniog sihT"
I brought up Goethe's book because it is a fairly clear demonstration
that a book can be dangerous: it led to a rash of suicides when it was
published. I don't claim that it is dangerous anymore; as you point
out, people are hardly likely to know how even to pronounce Goethe's
name, much less read him, much less consider what he has to say
interesting or significant.
As far as your thought experiment goes, I have no problem with it or
with the answers you propose, since those 200 parents didn't ask that
the book not be bought, just that it be kept from their children. And
I'll agree with your implication that all in all the Ayn Rand book is
probably more dangerous; I dread the inevitable day that I'm going to
be arguing with my kids about her work. I feel sorry for the kids
whose parents are going to let them think that her books contain some
Really Deep Thoughts. But I wouldn't begrudge a parent the decision to
neither spending time and effort challenging her work nor abandoning
their kids to it, but to say instead "Sorry, you'll just have to wait
until you're 18, out of here, hopefully ready to deal with it, but in
any case out of my control." Time and energy are limited, you have to
spend it where you think it will do the most good.
Rick Saenz
SubGenius
I am constantly puzzled by the equating of `protection' to `preventing
access to knowledge'. It is by no means new; in Western culture it
goes back at least as far as Genesis. It is Old, Bad Craziness.
Carefully removing their ability to act on their own foolishness rather
than our own, making sure they aren't exposed to anything that might
suggest to them that they live in a strange and frequently violent world,
we offer the chilluns Disney films to teach them of a world full of
warm and fuzzy anthropomorphic critters that make sure the Good Guys
always win, and warn them, `Be careful in the Big, Bad World, dearest.
There are people who would seek to control what you can see, read or
think.'
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
Rick Saenz
would seek to control what you can see, read or think, and they don't
have your best interests at heart." Part of my job as a parent is to
recognize that since children don't come into the world prepared to
fight that battle, they need attention and training to get them to the
point where they can.
I'm puzzled by the fact that people on the other side of this issue
are so comfortable painting a detailed (and bizarre) picture of those
of us on this side. Is it something like voting Republican, i.e.
easier than thinking? If I consider my job to be to prepare my child
as best as possible by age 18, don't you think he or she will be
somewhere along the way before reaching 18? You're free to disagree
with my approach to child-rearing, but you might also want to be a
little more informed about what that approach is before you parody it
on thousands of machines throughout the civilized world.
Rick Saenz
Sharon Kim Goetz
>Like I said, almost all of the material I'm concerned about has been
>made available in public libraries since the early 60s, and almost all
>of it has been produced since then. I invite you to make the case that
>literature and education didn't exist before that.
I'm certainly not going to argue that lit and education wasn't extant
before 1960. I'm curious, though, what material you're concerned about.
If it's sexually explicit literature, why not ban Chaucer, Spenser, and
the Irish epic Ta/in Bo Cuailnge? (That's late 1300's, late 1500's, and
about 1100 if you're going from the written version instead of the oral
tradition that predated it by at least 400 years.)
NO, I am not actually suggesting that those authors and the Ta/in get
banned, for anyone who can't tell; I'm using them as examples. (Just
checking.)
Sharon Kim Goetz
Dale Keiger <d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu> wrote:
>In article <36f1ff$d...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>, gor...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
>(Karen Gorman) wrote:
>> ... the proposal actually reads this way, "*no* child can check out books
>Sharon,
>I think you are absolutely right in all respects in what you say above. I
This should be pretty clear to people with threaded newsreaders, and I
apologize to the rest of you, but I'm just noting that Dale's response
was to *Karen* Gorman, not to me.
Rick Saenz
Sharon Kim Goetz <gthi...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
I'm certainly not going to argue that lit and education wasn't extant
before 1960. I'm curious, though, what material you're concerned about.
If it's sexually explicit literature, why not ban Chaucer, Spenser, and
the Irish epic Ta/in Bo Cuailnge? (That's late 1300's, late 1500's, and
about 1100 if you're going from the written version instead of the oral
tradition that predated it by at least 400 years.)
Thanks for asking. It's not an easy question to answer with a list,
since it changes and continues to change as my children grow up. Right
now they are young, so I am more concerned about Mighty Morphin' Power
Rangers than I am about sexually explicit material. But I'll admit
that _Daddy's Roommate_, _Heather Has Two Mommies_, and _Gloria Goes
To Gay Pride_ are also on the list. (Lord, I can barely stand to
contemplate what sort of followups I just guaranteed.) Books on basic
human sexuality will be fine, when they are old enough that such books
are relevant. Books such as the ones NAMBLA recommends celebrating the
joys of man/boy love will just have to wait until I'm no longer in
control. I'd like to keep _Final Exit_ away from them as they pass
through adolesence.
Maybe one more example will help. I don't read much fiction written
since 1900, so I'm occasionally disoriented when I do. A book group I
attended selected the book _Was_ for discussion. I gather this book is
well thought of by many people, and I don't dispute their opinions.
But I don't think I've ever read a more negative portrayal of the
human condition: we read about the real Dorothy (of Oz fame) and her
miserable, abusive life on the Kansas plains and subsequent life as a
prostitute, we read about Judy Garland's miserable childhood and life,
we read about Garland's mother dying forgotten by her daughter in a
factory parking lot, we read about a homosexual couple, one of them
being obsessed with Garland and the film of The Wizard of Oz,
contracting AIDS, and somehow trying to reedeem? resolve? things by
going to Kansas and tracking down the real Dorothy. And, of course,
none of it is true. Now, tell me two things:
(a) are we in the same ballpark as Chaucer, Spenser, etc. here?
(b) how do I explain this book to a young teen who already thinks
(for no especially good reason) that life is meaningless and
all adults are hypocrites?
Rick Saenz
LadyJane
>
> [*] There would have to be a simple system for the notation, since a
> long statement of the parent[s]'s feelings wouldn't fit and probably
> wouldn't get read each time by the librarian. Perhaps a five-point
> scale: 1 - Object strongly, 2 - Object, 3 - Neutral, 4 - Only object to
> very explicit materials, 5 - Allow everything. Perhaps two scales, one
> for sex and another for violence?
>
(assuming something absolutely *has* to be done, which no one has yet
convinced me), but once you get into separate scales for sex and violence some
parents are going to start demanding scales for religion and whatever else
they don't like. Perhaps a number code indicating what the parent objects to?
This still seems rather impracticable, though.
--Jane
Karen Gorman
>In article <36f1ff$d...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>,
>
> If the library is telling _me_ that my children cannot borrow
> certain books, well then they have taken away my right to raise my
> children as I see fit.
>
>this is so. Could you elaborate?
>
>Rick Saenz
Well, Rick, my point is that the library/other parents would now be deciding
that this book or that book is inappropriate, not me as a parent. I'm not
sure why you seem so confused.
You seem to be a very protective father. Nothing particularly wrong with that,
it just doesn't happen to be my style. Could you please tell us how old your
children are? This might give us a better idea of where you're coming from.
Shoshana Edwards
blatant bragging about my kids.
First, I am a successful, happy, well educated 51 year old grandmother of
6, mother of 2. This was hard won, since I was raised in a restrictive,
ultraorthodox household, where I was beaten and shut in my room for 2
days once because I was caught reading Marjorie Morningstar. When I
entered college I was hopelessly ignorant of much of the body of
literature, nearly anything about human sexuality, etc. ad nauseam. I
had so much difficulty in sorting things out! But I did, with the help
of compassionate friends and professors and a love of reading that a
lifetime of a repressive parenting could not kill.
My children were allowed to read anything and everything. If I found
them reading pornography (and I did), we discussed why the stuff in those
magazines was degrading and silly and wrong. And we used it as a
springboard to talk about how and when sex became an enobling and
beautiful thing. If they read about violence and war, we talked about
why these things happened. Nothing was banned; nothing was forbidden. I
felt and still feel it was my responsbility as a parent to keep
communication open and flowing. You don't do this by denying their
intelligence and inate wisdom and ability to listen and form rational,
humane conclusions.
Censorship is the right word for the Fairfax proposal. Lambda showed us
what the list was that was to be restricted. Couch it in pretty words,
sugar coat it any way you want, it is still an attempt to censor. To
define what is "right" and "proper" and "moral" and "acceptable." And it
ain't right.
BTW, my two girls turned out terrific. They both graduated from college,
had lovely families, great husbands. My oldest died two years ago,
leaving a legacy of three children who already read voraciously and who
know that Grandma will talk about anything with them, and a father who
reads, and reads, and reads, to them.
Good night, everyone, Read whatever you want. Just don't believe it all.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Books From Bree - br...@netcom.com
"Man is always marveling at what he has blown apart, never at what the
universe has put together, and this is his limitation."
The Lost Notebooks of Loren Eisley
Rick Saenz
Karen Gorman <gor...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu> wrote:
Well, Rick, my point is that the library/other parents would now be deciding
that this book or that book is inappropriate, not me as a parent. I'm not
sure why you seem so confused
You can take it as a value judgment if you want, but as a practical
matter nobody will have decided that some book is inappropriate for
your child. The proposal asks that you state whether or not you want
your child to have access to a set of books that not all parents want
their children to have access to. It's easy enough to just say "yes"
and be done with it.
You seem to be a very protective father. Nothing particularly wrong
with that, it just doesn't happen to be my style. Could you please
tell us how old your children are? This might give us a better idea
of where you're coming from.
My son is almost six, my daughter is 3 1/2, and another son will
arrive in February. My son is currently devouring a series of highly
abridged "classics" (Treasure Island, Oliver Twist, etc.), while my
daughter plays at reading the Arthur series by Marc Brown, books made
from Disney movies, and some American Girl books we recently bought.
I also have some close friends with children from ages 8 to 20. We
spend a lot of time comparing notes on our children's progress. Their
experiences have shaped my approach quite a bit.
Rick Saenz
Evolve or Perish
>The last sentence is incomplete. It should read "There are people who
>would seek to control what you can see, read or think, and they don't
>have your best interests at heart."
And doing these things with someone's best interests at heart somehow
excuses them? Perhaps it does. But I do know that I was raised with
absolutely free access to information, and I grew up to be neither an
axe murderer, a drug addict, nor a Republican (and I even read Ayn
Rand!).
I have no issue with how you, or almost anyone else, chooses to raise
their children. But, to bring this thread somewhat on-topic, you have
endorsed measures like the Fairfax proposal, which seem quite bizarre
and reactionary.
I, unlike most, do not feel this to be a constitutional issue, nor
one of censorship. What the proposal boils down to is introducing
government interference in an area where there has been none before,
in an area where there seems no real call for it. And you've done a
terrible job of demonstrating a need for such measures.
Rick Saenz
Evolve or Perish <br...@chloe.tamu.edu> wrote:
I, unlike most, do not feel this to be a constitutional issue, nor
one of censorship. What the proposal boils down to is introducing
government interference in an area where there has been none before,
in an area where there seems no real call for it. And you've done a
terrible job of demonstrating a need for such measures.
I haven't tried to demonstrate the need for these measures. I've only
tried to point out that these measures can be useful to some parents,
and that it isn't unreasonable for those parents to ask for something
along those lines. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the community to
reject the proposal after due consideration, either. It's a community
matter.
Rick Saenz
SubGenius
[I'd said:]
: I am constantly puzzled by the equating of `protection' to `preventing
: access to knowledge'. It is by no means new; in Western culture it
: goes back at least as far as Genesis. It is Old, Bad Craziness.
: Carefully removing their ability to act on their own foolishness rather
: than our own, making sure they aren't exposed to anything that might
: suggest to them that they live in a strange and frequently violent world,
: we offer the chilluns Disney films to teach them of a world full of
: warm and fuzzy anthropomorphic critters that make sure the Good Guys
: always win, and warn them, `Be careful in the Big, Bad World, dearest.
: There are people who would seek to control what you can see, read or
: think.'
:
: The last sentence is incomplete. It should read "There are people who
: would seek to control what you can see, read or think, and they don't
: have your best interests at heart."
+----------------------------------------SubG------------------------------+
You are of course correct. Your version is far more frightening.
`This is for
your own good. I'm
from the government,
and I'm here to
help,'
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
Rick Saenz
>Rick Saenz (sa...@bga.com) wrote:
> [SubG says ...]
>: we offer the chilluns Disney films to teach them of a world full of
>: warm and fuzzy anthropomorphic critters that make sure the Good Guys
>: always win, and warn them, `Be careful in the Big, Bad World, dearest.
>: There are people who would seek to control what you can see, read or
>: think.'
>:
>: The last sentence is incomplete. It should read "There are people who
>: would seek to control what you can see, read or think, and they don't
>: have your best interests at heart."
>
>+----------------------------------------SubG------------------------------+
>You are of course correct. Your version is far more frightening.
>
>`This is for
> your own good. I'm
> from the government,
> and I'm here to
> help,'
> Yours etc.,
Not the first time I've been misread, willfully or otherwise, for the
sake of a joke/insult. Let's try "This is for your own good; I'm your
parent, and I'm obligated to help." If that concept frightens you,
what would you suggest as a better method of helping children? Social
agencies? Schools? Government-funded day care centers? Social Darwinism?
Rick Saenz
Evolve or Perish
Rick Saenz <sa...@bga.com> wrote:
>A book group I attended selected the book _Was_ for discussion.
[...]
>But I don't think I've ever read a more negative portrayal of the
>human condition:
[...]
> (a) are we in the same ballpark as Chaucer, Spenser, etc. here?
If, by this, you are asking if _Was_ is literature of the rank of
Chaucer, etc., I fail to see how this is relevant to the question of
objectionable content.
> (b) how do I explain this book to a young teen who already thinks
> (for no especially good reason) that life is meaningless and
> all adults are hypocrites?
You tell your teen that a lot of people - most, in fact - have lives
as miserable or worse than those of the book, and that they should be
thankful that they are not one of those. And you tell them that only
*most* adults are hypocrites.
What you seem to be objecting to here is a general tone of nihilism.
Which seems an unusual thing to want to shield children from. And if
it is a "negative portrayal of the human condition" that bothers you
so much, what are you going to do about _Gulliver's Travels_? Or
Hobbes? Or _Lear_? Or Nietzsche? Last I checked, all that stuff
predates the sixties.
And how, exactly, is Ayn Rand "dangerous?" Anyone with a lick of sense
outgrows her by 19.
Richard Caley
se> Good night, everyone, Read whatever you want. Just don't believe it all.
APPLAUSE!
[Film clip of Woman's Institute clapping][*]
``they think it's all over, ... it is now!''
And other sounds of massive approbation.
[*] Yes, another bloody Python reference.
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Rebecca Leann Smit Crowley
: For me, sexually explicit material is a minor worry; I think my wife
: and I can raise our kids so that they will be able to handle such stuff
: by the time it means anything at all to them.
I knew about sex before I could read. I could read before I
started kindergarten. Presumably you plan on informing your
children in their very tender years, an idea which I find
admirable and one which, should the opportunty ever be mine,
I fully intend to implement on any young'uns I find myself
a parent to.
I further subscribe to the notion that a drinking age is a really
bad idea, unless it's a maximum (i.e. all people should have
experienced the oral intake of alcohol before they reach a certain
age. I suggest 5, altho I could be convinced to let it go as
high as 10.).
Beyond that, even, I personally believe that children who
are going to watch cartoons in which characters bash each
other about should be required to understand what _really_
happens when you bash someone over the head with a cast iron
frying pan (drop them from a significant height, run over
them with a car, etc.). This need not be visual.
I think reality is really real, and kids should not be be
dropped into it as adults without adequate preparation.
--
Rebecca Crowley standard disclaimers apply rcro...@zso.dec.com
If government is outlawed, only outlaws will have government.
Bill Riggs
the least due to the fact that, while I am not a resident of Fairfax
County, I live close enough to get traffic tickets from the swarm of
county police who live, like the Sheriff of Nottingham's men, off
the the blood, sweat, and tears of the local peasants...
In article <36phc8$a...@tierra.santafe.edu> j...@tyuonyi.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>Okay. Let's suppose that you are a small-town librarian, with a
>limited budget (redundant, I know) and you have 200 parents that have
>signed slips requesting that their children not be allowed to check
>out "that suicide book by Gertie", thanks partly to a petition
>circulated by that Saenz fellow who wanted to alert them to the
>potential dangers of this book. Meanwhile, you have one request,
>written in green crayon, for a copy of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged".
>
>Questions:
>(a) Which one would you order?
>(b) what would you be muttering under your breath while dropping the
>order into the mail?
To continue...Fairfax County is no longer backwards rural America.
It is a large, impersonal oligarchy where the average citizen has little
or no say as to what his or her government does or fails to do.
To whit: Whatever the policy adopted by Fairfax County with respect
to controlling the dissemination of adult literature by the public libraries,
you can bet that its execution of that policy will be high-handed, impersonal,
bureaucratic, and oppressive.
Karen Gounaud, the activist who instigated this controversy
in the first place, plays very stronlgy on the citizens' alienation
from their local government, their distrust of the activities of that
government, and their apparent inability to get the officials of Fairfax
County to listen to reasoned arguments or to apply common sense without
the citizens collectively sreaming at them. That will not change if the shoe
goes on the other foot and the policy gets changed to a more conservative
one. Fairfax County is just not a "power down" kind of organization.
So now, the internal politics of Fairfax county are blown out into
the national media (The Washington Post published a collection of letters,
all of which, from what I could tell, all opposing any sort of regulation),
and onto the Internet itself. This hardly increases the control the citizens
of Fairfax County are able to exercise over their own affairs, much less the
control Farifax County parents are able to exercise over their own children.
Unlike many of the correspondents to this group, I've been in a
position to follow the debate on local radio stations before it hit the
Big Top. And the only conclusion I've come to is that, despite the long trek
I make up to work from Fredericksburg, I'd no sooner live in the
Fairfax Bureaucratic Republic than I would set up a domicile in the
Anarchic District of Columbia, soon to embrace Mr. Barry once again to its
busom.
Bill R.
--
"And I would ask you to think of the truth "My opinions do not represent
and not Socrates; agree with me, those of my employer or
if I seem to you to be speaking the truth; any government agency."
or if not, withstand me might and main, - Bill Riggs (1994)
that I may not deceive you as well as myself
in my enthusiasm, and like the bee,
leave my sting in you before I die."
- Plato, _Phaedo_, 4th Century B.C.
Dale Keiger
(DeaconMac) wrote:
> Sanity seems to have held sway in Fairfax County. At least seven of the 11
> members of the Fairfax County Library Board have now voiced opposition to
> the proposal to restrict children's access to books with "adult themes."
> The rabidly conservative County Board of Supervisors has also gone on
> record as opposing the scheme, saying it would be a "serious infraction by
> government of parental responsibility."
>
> Among the books targeted by supporters of the failed proposal were titles
> dealing with non-Christian religions, homosexuality, abortion rights,
> euthanasia, and other "adult topics."
‹
It seems to me this had all worked out the way it should. Some members of
the community expressed a concern and requested some responsiveness from a
public institution. The people responsible for the institution correctly
sussed out the political agenda behind the concerns, decided that it was
not an agenda they either wanted to or could adopt, and voted (miracle of
miracles) to stay out of it.
I'm glad the ordinance ( or whatever it was) lost, by the way. I've never
thought it sounded like a great idea or was something I'd want my library
to do. My principal arguments have been over the right of citizens to make
such a request and whether it constitutes censorship; that debate then
spilled into a sometimes-acrimonious exchange over how to be a responsible
parent. Enough said about that. Thanks to almost everyone for an engaging
debate.
Now, about those slasher videos....
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
ERIC J. OBERMEYER
: I'll agree with your implication that all in all the Ayn Rand book is
: probably more dangerous; I dread the inevitable day that I'm going to
: be arguing with my kids about her work. I feel sorry for the kids
: whose parents are going to let them think that her books contain some
: Really Deep Thoughts. But I wouldn't begrudge a parent the decision to
: neither spending time and effort challenging her work nor abandoning
: their kids to it, but to say instead "Sorry, you'll just have to wait
: until you're 18, out of here, hopefully ready to deal with it, but in
: any case out of my control." Time and energy are limited, you have to
: spend it where you think it will do the most good.
Oh, Rick! Rick! Rick! We were doing so well, you and I, walking through
this thread arm in arm, agreeing with each other. Then you had to do this
to me...
I think that a good argument can be made that Rand did have some good
insights about economics and the hypocritical socialist mindset. Her
thoughts on religion and self, needless to say, were as deep as the water
in a birdbath. Most people seem to either dismiss her work in its
entirety, or else they become Ayn Rand groupies. If your kids were to read
it and think about it critically, with your guidance, they might be able
to separate the wheat from the chaff (when they're in their teens, that is).
For you to say, "Sorry, you'll just have to wait until you're 18, out of
here, hopefully ready to deal with it, but in any case out of my control,"
is a terrible thing to do. I can understand wanting to protect your kids
from pornographic and homoerotic material, but to be unwilling to even
discuss ideas contrary to your own while your children are under 18 seems
to be asking for disaster. You say that you dread the day you will discuss
this with your children: has it ever occurred to you that children will
bring contrary ideas home and ask you about them in order that you can
help them resolve the differences between the ideas you have instilled in
them and the new ones? Is this not a complement to the upbringing you will
have given them? If you were to refuse to help them see the elements of
truth and the elements of falsehood in the new ideas, would it not invite
them to believe that you are incapable of supporting your point of view?
Would this not undermine your position and undo everything else you have
done? It is okay to shield your kids from bad things, but if you don't
discuss the existence of those things and why they are bad, your kids will
be swept into the abyss when they reach college and are exposed to them
for the first time in one fell swoop.
*****************************************************************************
Eric J. Obermeyer (ejob...@mtu.edu)
__.oOo.__
/'( _ )`\ "A wise man's heart inclines him toward the right,
/ . \/^\/ . \ but a fool's heart toward the left."
/ _)_`-'_(_ \ - Ecclesiastes 10:2
/.-~ ).( ~-.\ "I've just surrounded myself with an endless horde
/' /\_/\ `\ of mindless disciples ready to go forth and do my
"-V-" bidding... I guess I just don't see the downside."
- Tom Servo
*****************************************************************************
Paul Callahan
>I feel sorry for the kids
>whose parents are going to let them think that her books contain some
>Really Deep Thoughts.
I don't even understand what it means to "let" someone think something. Do
you think that if, as a parent, you argue with your children, even if
you do it well, that that is going to convince them that you are correct?
Or do you think it is important to present yourself as an authority figure
in disagreement with the things you don't want them to believe?
People think that certain thoughts are "Really Deep" because the ideas
themselves are appealing *and* because they haven't seen them presented
before. I read Ayn Rand when I was 24 or so, at the suggestion of a friend,
and I wasn't particularly impressed because I had thought many of the same
things myself and eventually rejected them by myself. Growing up involves
being exposed to different ideas and putting them into perspective. Any
reasonable, openminded person will eventually reject Rand as oversimplistic.
It has nothing to do with what their parents "let them think."
>But I wouldn't begrudge a parent the decision to
>neither spending time and effort challenging her work nor abandoning
>their kids to it, but to say instead "Sorry, you'll just have to wait
>until you're 18, out of here, hopefully ready to deal with it, but in
>any case out of my control."
Ayn Rand is no better or worse than a lot of other science fiction. Reading
_Atlas Shrugged_ is a more wholesome activity for a 16 year old than taking
psychoactive drugs, shoplifting, or watching four hours of television a day.
I would begrudge to hell any parent that discouraged a child from taking the
initiative to read a lengthy tome of anything that wasn't assigned in class.
Be realistic. Most people--this includes those who are college-educated--do
very little elective reading as adults. During adolescence, there is still a
chance of developing the lifelong habit of reading. To hinder this for
ideological reasons is not in the child's best interest.
What is the big deal about Rand anyway? The way I see it, many of her themes
are on target. She believes people should attain status through merit rather
than through their connections in an organization. Is this unreasonable?
Especially if you see this in perspective... Having grown up in the Soviet
Union, she had some reason to look at collectivism as the ultimate evil. She
had some insight in the way that mediocre management-types and bureaucrats can
make it impossible for competent people with initiative to do anything new and
interesting. At the same, time, she was blinded to just about every other
evil, and seems to have completely rejected the idea of compassion as a
virtue. That's the main part I disagree with.
Rand identified a lot of real problems with society, and put them forth in a
form that a bright child could recognize. Then--yeah--she proposed solutions
that are totally off the wall. But if you are helping your kids to become
critical thinkers, there is no reason to feel they won't figure this out for
themselves.
--
Paul Callahan
call...@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu
Rachel Kadel
The thing about this and other such proposals that fills me with fear and
trembling is that either a: the "bad" books will all be shelved together,
and labelled as such, and well-behaved little children, and big children,
and even adults, who always try to do what is supposed to be clean and
good and pure will never accidentally happen upon the books that are good
and good for you that show sexuality, for example, as the natural part of
human life that it is. Thus books will be deprived of some of their gift
for relaxing our inhibitions learned in the atmosphere of childhood, as
those that could do so are so labelled that those who need them will
avoid them.
Or, b: The Adult section of the library itself will be declared
off-limits to children, and the twelve-year-old who's outgrown the
children's section of the library is locked away from the wonderful
experience of wandering directionless through the seemingly infinite bounty
of the adult section of even the smallest local library, perusing the
initial pages of this or that book until she finds one that rings bells
of recognition of the characters and their motivations, and takes it (and
twenty others) home to read in full.
When you add those drawbacks to the fact that it will be only the most
well-behaved of children of uptight parents that will actually not find
the "objectionable" information before their, say, thirteenth birthday,
this sort of policy seems dangerously pointless.
Yes, parents have a right to some sort of say over what their children
read: they also have a right to some sort of say over where their
children go, who they meet, what they study, and when they go to bed.
These can be enforced by various fairly standard methods available to
parents; you can, for instance, go to the library with your child and
point out appropriate books, or watch while your child picks out books.
You can ask that your child show you what he/she reads, so that if there
are ideas in it that concern you, you can discuss them with your child.
The government is not responsible for enforcing your household rules: you
are. The government is not responsible for enforcing your household
curfew to the detriment of the youths that have a later one or none,
neither is it responsible for enforcing your household reading policies
to the detriment of the youths that have more liberal ones.
Excuse me for preaching to the choir, but having been a child recently
myself (only legally adult for three months now), I have strong views on
the matter.
Rachel Meredith Kadel
Rick Saenz
ERIC J. OBERMEYER <ejob...@mtu.edu> wrote:
Rick Saenz (sa...@bga.com) wrote:
I'll agree with your implication that all in all the Ayn Rand book is
probably more dangerous; [etc.]
Oh, Rick! Rick! Rick! We were doing so well, you and I, walking through
this thread arm in arm, agreeing with each other. Then you had to do this
to me...
Apologies all around. Not only should I have spent more time about the
book I used as an example, but I should have put more thought into how
I (over)stated that point. Let me back off and try again ...
My hope is that my children will be capable of giving careful,
considered thought to any idea that comes along, no matter how
superficially attractive, no matter how seductively presented. My fear
is that there may be some ideas they won't be able to handle properly,
due to tenderness of years, or a persuasive presentation, or a failure
on the part of me or their mother to prepare them properly, or our
inability to anticipate some need, or ... whatever. My approach is to
recognize both the potential dangers and my own limitations (time,
energy, knowledge, persuasiveness), do what I can to compensate, and
then just try my best. I can't possibly "succeed", but that doesn't
excuse me from trying.
I don't really dread the thought of discussing Rand's ideas (although
I also don't look forward to having to re-read her books again). In
fact, I'll grant that Rand's books might be a really good introduction
for an adolescent to the notion of a philosophy, and could be used
effectively to teach one how to critically examine a philosophy.
The shudder that went through me in thinking about Rand was caused by
a memory of a high school friend, bright, well-meaning, a little
naive, who read _The Fountainhead_ and was so enthusiastic that he
decided to become an architect. Now, you and I both know that Rand's
philosophy has nothing to do with architecture. And I doubt that my
friend ended up either an architect or a Randian. But I do know that
he invested (wasted?) a lot of energy and a couple of years of college
doing something he really had no good reason to do, in large part
because of his emotional reaction to Rand's book. Just the sort of
experience I hope my children can avoid, whether or not I can do
anything to help.
Rick Saenz
Dale Keiger
> I am constantly puzzled by the equating of `protection' to `preventing
> access to knowledge'. It is by no means new; in Western culture it
> goes back at least as far as Genesis. It is Old, Bad Craziness.
‹
Access to knowledge is one thing. Access to destructive influence is
another. If I had a 13-year-old son who seemed to be falling under the
sway of a 19-year-old drug dealer, I'd do what I could to cut off access
to the drug dealer. Not to keep my son from having knowledge of the drug
dealer, but to get him away from a destructive influence long enough to
straighten him out. And if I felt strongly, as some parents do, about the
influence some books might have on their kids, I'd want to do the same
thing.
What you seem to be saying is that I have to surrender my offspring to
your conception of knowledge. I don't think you're smart enough to decide
that for me, or anyone else. That's not a personal shot at you, because I
don't think *I'm* smart enough to decide for you and your kids. Or for
anyone else.
The question for me is not one of whether someone should have access to
knowledge, but when. If my bright, mature, inquisitive18-year-old
(speaking theoretically, since I don't have kids) wants to read de Sade,
okay. If my hormone-addled, inexperienced 11-year-old wants to read de
Sade, I'd probably say "not now. Later." The knowledge you speak of has no
use or meaning unless judgment and maturity enter into its consideration.
> Carefully removing their ability to act on their own foolishness rather
> than our own, making sure they aren't exposed to anything that might
> suggest to them that they live in a strange and frequently violent world,
> we offer the chilluns Disney films to teach them of a world full of
> warm and fuzzy anthropomorphic critters that make sure the Good Guys
> always win, and warn them, `Be careful in the Big, Bad World, dearest.
> There are people who would seek to control what you can see, read or
> think.'
‹
You seem to suggest that all foolishness is equal. Not so. As a kid I was
foolish with money a few times. No big deal. I was also foolish with cars
and beer. That could have gotten me killed.
Kids know full well how strange and violent the world is. It's the job of
a responsible parent to make sure they do, so they're alert to the dangers
in that world. But there are points in their lives when kids don't think
very well, if they think at all, and when they are prey to bad influence
and manipulation. If you don't believe me, come to my city and I'll
introduce you to some of the wonderful guys on the street around here who
manipulate kids right into drive-by shootings and gangbanging. You can
prattle all you want about chilluns and Disney, under the fanciful notion
that you're making a worthwhile point; some of us see the wreckage every
day on our way to work.
By the way, thank you for another smug, intolerant and inaccurate
characterization of a dissenting viewpoint. I was under the impression
that people with e-mail addresses ending in ".edu" would be open to
thoughtful consideration of opposing views and averse to the shallow
resort to stereotyping.
My mistake.
--
Dale Keiger
d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Karen Gorman
Bill Riggs <ri...@descartes.etl.army.mil> wrote:
> I suppose it is soapbox time for me on this thread at last, not
>the least due to the fact that, while I am not a resident of Fairfax
>
[deletia]
> Karen Gounaud, the activist who instigated this controversy
>in the first place, plays very stronlgy on the citizens' alienation
>from their local government, their distrust of the activities of that
>government, and their apparent inability to get the officials of Fairfax
>County to listen to reasoned arguments or to apply common sense without
[snip]
>
And what type of "activist" is Karen Gounaud? Is she part of local
government, or is she simply a "concerned citizen?" If you know more about
the beginnings of this proposal, could you please post it? What prompted
it, how many people are behind it, etc.
> Unlike many of the correspondents to this group, I've been in a
>position to follow the debate on local radio stations before it hit the
>Big Top.
Bill, its good to get this perspective from someone who is closer to the
action than many of us are. We don't get to hear all of the underlying
issues associated with the proposal.
>And the only conclusion I've come to is that, despite the long trek
>I make up to work from Fredericksburg, I'd no sooner live in the
>Fairfax Bureaucratic Republic than I would set up a domicile in the
>Anarchic District of Columbia, soon to embrace Mr. Barry once again to its
>busom.
>
Aside: This re-election of Barry is unbelievable to me. How can people want
to have him as the mayor of the US capital?
-Karen
gor...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
"They want to stop the ones who want a rock to tie a string around
But everybody wants a rock to tie a piece of string around."
We Want a Rock - TMBG
msmo...@delphi.com
Wednesday, the 5th of October, 1994
Karen Gorman writes:
Aside: This re-election of Barry is unbelievable to me.
How can people want to have him as the mayor of the US capital?
some sort of "more sinned against than sinning", "victim
of the opposing side's political hatred" spin that
voters are buying in both these cases and that explains
what to me is inexplicable?
Obligatory remark on-thread: I don't know, I just can't get
excited one way or t'other about moves to put an "Adults
Only" section in a library. On one hand, I think parents
ought to discipline children to an extent that children of
themselves do not get into stuff the parents veto, without
there being any need of the library to do the dirty work.
I.e I think parents ought to hold themselves responsible
for their children's behaviour, and not everybody else
but. On the other hand, I see no reason why children
ought to come into full exercise of inalienable Rights
until they are adults and can be presumed (by law if not
in fact) to be responsible for themselves. So, legal
or governmental or public restrictions on the possible
modes by which children may Pursue Happiness seem
to me perfectly legit. And it makes sense to me
that the public ought to have by right of proprietorship,
a democratically elective power over regulating the
use of publicly-owned space and money. (I mean schools, libraries,
and money for Robert Mapplethorpe exhibits as well.) But,
on the *other* other hand, in our household De Sade is going
to sit on the shelves as freely accessable to our children
at ages 11 and 18 as it is now at ages 2 and 4. And though
I certainly intend to give advice and counsel them in their
reading, including "You aren't ready for that yet" and
"Wait a few years, you'll find that boring right now"
and "I think there's some dangerous stuff here. Let's
discuss it after you've read it" and "You will probably
get nightmares with that", I can't think of
anything I would positively forbid them to read. I
want to raise my children to be intellectually
and morally unafraid of books, so, while I recognize
the legitimacy of the regulatory question whether
we create an "Adults Only" section at a library, my
vote would nevertheless be agin' it as not the best
educative policy.
Now that Martha and I have started homeschooling kindergarten
with our oldest I do think we are simply of a practical
necessity going to exercise some control over their reading.
For example, Xan (who is 4) likes reading The Berenstain Bears.
He does pretty well, but Martha and I would also like to
push him along a bit towards a little more challenging stuff.
So, he reads The Berenstain Bears (his choice) but we also feed
him (assign him---our choice) other stuff as well. There's
no actual forbidding of him to read anything, but certainly
our choosing some of his reading for him means that cuts down
somewhat what he can choose.
Probably the kind of book I'm most likely to veto or
at least steer them away from, though, is textbooks,
since there seem to be so many of these that are sloppy,
mushy, unreadable, and inaccurate. I got mad recently
at a picture book on astronomy we got out from the
library because it mis-identified one of the stars in
the cup of the Big Dipper as the North Star. That sort
of thing.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@tekel.butler.edu)
Rachel Kadel
Dale Keiger <d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu> wrote:
>In article <rteeterC...@netcom.com>, rte...@netcom.com (Robert
>Teeter) wrote:
>
>> That's why we have a Bill of Rights: because some rights are so
>> important that not even a majority should be able to take them away.
>--
>If people wanted to prevent *me,* an adult, from taking out certain books
>from the library, I'd be right in line with you, Robert, on constitutional
>grounds. But I fail to see how parents asking for a little procedural help
>regarding what their kids can check out constitutes (pardon me) a
>constitutional crisis.
>
>To me, the most telling argument in these postings against the proposed
>Fairfax measure has been that parents want the government to do what they
>ought to be doing themselves. To the extent that that's true, I side with
>those posters arguing against the measure. I guess (as I reason this out
>through this debate) what I've been responding to with some bafflement is
>the concept that this is censorship or a denial of the fundamental right
>of a nine-year-old to read whatever he or she wants regardless of what his
>or her parents think.
>
>--
>Dale Keiger
>d...@resource.ca.jhu.edu
Ok, analogy time here: parents have a right to restrict what a child
reads; parents have a right to restrict where a child goes; parents have
a right to restrict who a child meets; parents have a right to restrict
what a child eats. These rights all have approximately the same basis:
the child's rights of choice are suspended in order to allow parents to
protect him from his errors.
So: should the government prevent children going to areas of town that
a majority of those voting consider unsafe, unless the children have
notes from their mommies? Should the government prevent children meeting
people whose politics or other ideas or behavior a majority of the
population finds inappropriate, offensive, or dangerous, yet insufficient
to send them to jail, unless, again, they have a note from their
mommies? Should the government forbid children from buying foods a
majority of the population considers unhealthy without a note from their
mommies?
As far as I'm concerned, requiring a book to be shelved under a sign
saying "Lewd and obscene books that you're not allowed to read," and [I
presume, if this law is to have any effect] guarding it to ensure that
those without permission don't read it is a form of censorship.
Parents always have found ways of enforcing their parental rights to
restrict, and they will continue to. When children are five, their
mommies are always with them when they're in the library, to keep them
from destroying things and to help them find appropriate reading matter.
For so long as absolute control over the child's reading matter is
important to the parent, they can continue this practice, just as, if
parents don't want their children taught about evolution, they can
home-school them. And if they want to control who their children play
with, they can go meet the family before they let their children go over
to play. And if they want to control what their children eat, they can
send a note to whoever the child is eating with saying "don't feed my
child chocolate."
When a child TRULY stops obeying his/her parents, not just occasionally
but consistently, either the parents have done something wrong, or the
child has grown up.
A book shelved with the "bad books" is far less likely to be read by the
"good kids." Many children would thus be deterred from reading books
that would help them deal with issues such as their own and others'
sexuality, death, biology homework, how to prevent themselves from
becoming pregnant (REMEMBER, we're talking about kids up to eighteen.
We're talking about people old enough to be regular posters to r.a.b for
several years without [hopefully] coming off as complete
propellerheads.), what to do if you're sexually abused, what sexual abuse
IS and that it's ok to tell about it, the existence of homosexuals,
possible reasons for and results of that fact, and on and on. Even if
one obtains blanket permission from one's parents, the extra scrutiny is
likely to deter one from the sex shelf.
Vehemently,
Rachel Meredith Kadel
Rick Saenz
... I can't think of anything I would positively forbid them to
read. I want to raise my children to be intellectually and morally
unafraid of books, so, while I recognize the legitimacy of the
regulatory question whether we create an "Adults Only" section at a
library, my vote would nevertheless be agin' it as not the best
educative policy.
One of many good points from this post. I single it out because it
will help me highlight a fact that has usually been obscured in this
thread: having control implies little or nothing about how you will
exercise it.
I bring this up because I think that a number of posters have made
their points against the Fairfax proposal by demonizing parents.
Although it hasn't been stated baldly, I suspect that many posters
have strong opinions about keeping library materials freely accessible
because they consider the library a necessary last resort for children
who would otherwise be kept in the dark by their parents about vital
aspects of life. I don't deny that this happens, but does it
automatically follow that parents who exercise this kind of control
are unenlightened?
I may have concerns about, say, drug use, nihilism, premarital sex,
homosexuality, or cultic religions. I may therefore want control over
when, how, and even if my children are exposed to materials glorifying
these things. That doesn't mean that our family will act as if these
things don't exist; if anything, they will tend to top the list of
discussion items because they are so important.
Rick Saenz
Richard Caley
rs> Certainly before 1960; probably not since the mid-70s. Not so much
rs> because adult material was segregated and controlled, but because the
rs> kind of stuff you find on the shelves today just wasn't available back
rs> then.
???
Of course, many of the _particular_ books weren't around, but there is
no _kind_ of book I can think of that wasn't available.
There's nothing new under the sun.
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Richard Caley
rs> But I'll admit that _Daddy's Roommate_, _Heather Has Two Mommies_,
rs> and _Gloria Goes To Gay Pride_ are also on the list. (Lord, I can
rs> barely stand to contemplate what sort of followups I just
rs> guaranteed.)
Probably ones pointing out that if you want to hide homosexuality
from them, you have shot down your pre-1960 argument. Lots of
homosexuality in pre-1960 books. (you'd also be best moveing to
another planet of course).
rs> (b) how do I explain this book to a young teen who already thinks
rs> (for no especially good reason) that life is meaningless and
rs> all adults are hypocrites?
How about `this was written by an adult, and this seems to agree with
you, so maybe adults aren't so different from you after all'? How
about `wow! wasn't _that_ author pissed off'?
On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that many early-teens
would read such a book. Those who would are going to be those
litterate enough to cope.
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
TUCKERKIRK
(Rachel Kadel) writes:
>Or, b: The Adult section of the library itself will be declared
>off-limits to children, and the twelve-year-old who's outgrown the
>children's section of the library is locked away from the wonderful
>experience of wandering directionless through the seemingly infinite
bounty
>of the adult section of even the smallest local library, perusing the
>initial pages of this or that book until she finds one that rings bells
>of recognition of the characters and their motivations, and takes it (and
>twenty others) home to read in full.
I've read this thread with interest, especially the comments above. When
I was a child, growing up in the South, (southern Virginia), this was the
policy in place. The adult section of the library was off-limits to
children unless the parent signed a release that said the child could
check out anything they wanted. I was one of the lucky ones who had
permission, and read any and everything I wanted. As a parent, I wouldn't
ever try to prohibit/censor what my son wants to read. How can a child
ever learn to separate good literature/useful ideas from dreck if they
aren't exposed to everything? You can't shelter children forever, and I'm
not sure you don't do a disservice if you try.
Sandie Kirkland
Rick Saenz
TUCKERKIRK <tucke...@aol.com> wrote:
I've read this thread with interest .... When I was a child,
growing up in the South, (southern Virginia), this was the policy in
place. The adult section of the library was off-limits to children
unless the parent signed a release that said the child could check
out anything they wanted. I was one of the lucky ones who had
permission, and read any and everything I wanted. As a parent, I
wouldn't ever try to prohibit/censor what my son wants to read. How
can a child ever learn to separate good literature/useful ideas from
dreck if they aren't exposed to everything? You can't shelter
children forever, and I'm not sure you don't do a disservice if you
try.
This is a pretty clear statement of a number of themes that have run
through this thread. It is also so reasonably expressed that I hate to
risk looking like I'm picking on Sandie Kirkland by responding to her
points. But I'd like to offer two questions for Sandie and for other
followers of this thread:
Sandie counts herself lucky that she had permission from her parents
to read anything and everything she wanted. Can we draw any
conclusions about just how unlucky those who didn't have such
permission were, or even about what those children were in fact
allowed to read? (Libraries aren't the only source of books.)
Is it truly necessary to be exposed to everything in order to learn to
separate good literature/useful ideas from dreck? If not, then what is
actually necessary and what can we forego?
Rick Saenz
p.s. I may be dangerously close to "growing" as a result of this
thread, because after pondering Question #1 it occurred to me
that if my kids have inherited anything close to their parent's
attitude towards books, I will sign that mythical permission slip
without blinking--because if I can't get them out of the
bookstores and into the libraries, THEY are going to start
cutting into MY book budget!
DeaconMac
(Karen Gorman) writes:
> And what type of "activist" is Karen Gounaud? Is she part of local
> government, or is she simply a "concerned citizen?" If you know more
about
> the beginnings of this proposal, could you please post it? What prompted
> it, how many people are behind it, etc.
Karen Jo Gounaud is a "concerned citizen" and an activist with the extreme
religious right. For the past couple of years, she has been almost
single-mindedly focused on an anti-gay agenda and has especially targeted
gay and lesbian literature (including the local gay news weekly) available
in the public library. She has also been linked with some of the more
"conservative" (a misnomer, in my opinion) political campaigns such as
those of Ollie North.
As for how many people back Gounaud's idea of a sanitized library, it's
hard to tell, but an opposing group called Northern Virginia Citizens
Against Censorship was able to turn out about 200 people at a recent
library board meeting (more than twice as many as Gounaud's group).
-- Deacon Maccubbin
--------------------------------------------------------
LAMBDA RISING BOOKSTORES
Every Gay & Lesbian Book in Print - Videos, Music, & Gifts, Too!
FREE Catalog by Mail - Out-of-Print Book Search Service
E-mail address: lambda...@his.com
--------------------------------------------------------
msmo...@delphi.com
Thursday, the 6th of October, 1994
Rachel Kadel writes, among other things :
... if
home-school them.
characterize the overwhelming majority of homeschoolers that Martha
and I have met, you could also put it that she and I have started
homeschooling precisely because we *do* want our children to learn
about evolution.
Mike Morris
(msmo...@tekel.butler.edu)
Bill Riggs
Sorry, pal.
What this proves above all else is that Fairfax County is nothing
like (name your suburban West Coast county). The people do not rule, and
there is no possibility to ignite a prairie fire without the assent of
the oligarchy.
In other words, if you have the horsey set behind you, you can
even bring Disney to its knees in Northern Virginia. If not, you can't even
pass a local ordinance (much less get someone to give you a fair hearing
in Traffic Court). The government of Fairfax County operates by inertia. It
is not accountable to its citizens and is not responsive to their concerns.
It may just be that if the bureaucracy took responsibility for itself,
there would not be this swarm of die hard right wing revolutionists trying
to impose their will on the hallowed freedoms of their fellow citizens.
None of this sounds like "politics as if people mattered" to me. That
would require the exercise of common sense.