All libraries have systems in place if a library user would like to remove a volume from the collection.
Wasilla, in particular, has a strong statement regarding reconsideration of library materials. I will let it speak for itself:
In accordance with the Wasilla Public Library Collection Development Policy, the library, “…strives to achieve a balanced collection of materials in the major information categories, as well as a fiction collection calculated to satisfy the widest possible variety of tastes. All viewpoints and opinions on controversial subjects will be represented whenever possible… Wasilla Public Library recognizes the right of every citizen to read and gather information, and his or her right to freedom from censorship by other persons. Many books are controversial and any given item may offend some persons. However, selections for this library will not be made on the basis of anticipated approval or disapproval, but solely on the merits of the material in relation to the building of the collection and to serving the interests of all readers. This library holds censorship to be a purely individual matter and declares that – while anyone is free to reject for himself books and other materials of which he does not approve – he cannot exercise this right of censorship to restrict the freedom of others.”
The statement almost brings tears to my eyes!
The full policy statement has been provided by the City of Wasilla, interestingly enough, under a special section of their website devoted to requested documents about Sarah Palin’s tenure as Mayor. Reconsiderations Requests of Library Material
This sounds damning enough. My question was whether there was some kind of “unspoken” political millieu where there was tacit “Patronage”. I guess the news media need to do some further digging here. I personally find political firing of librarians reprehensible. I feel that ALA, if it hasn’t already done so, needs to make clear where it stands on fair play for librarians, as it seems that this sort of thing could be a “back-door” means of censorship; threaten the librarian with something and see if they won’t budge from their position. I happen to know of one state where both patronage and potential censorship were a threat. It’s basically a matter of some “Professional” librarians looking the other way. No due process accorded the librarian; “at will” employment.
So do we have clear, definitive proof that that bitch did try to censor books? If so, can we get info about which ones? Has the librarian in question been silenced? That “document” seems to be typical neocon doublespeak to cover the fact that she was trying to censor books.
Librarians are one of the last groups that are actually trying to preserve liberty and freedom – keep up the good fight!
Much ado about nothing!
First of all, it is not uncommon for department heads to be political appointees; therefore, it is not unusual to ask the former mayor’s appointees for their resignations.
Second, it does not appear that Palin ever demanded any specific material be removed from the library. Although not a popular question, it is appropriate to ask a librarian his/her views on censorship. Unfortunately, there are librarians who do in fact censor (beyond the collection development policy).
The librarian in question has remained mum on the issue, and she didn’t retire until well after Palin’s election. I don’t think she was all that concerned that Palin was going to censor materials.
Lady Librarian,
This is a direct quote from the librarian, Mary Emmonds, in December of 1996: “This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy. … She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.”
Why would the librarian make this type of statement to the press if Palin was just asking her opinion on censorship? It is obviously in response to Palin suggesting that certain books be immediately pulled. After the Christmas holiday, Emmonds was told she was terminated. There was a public outcry, and Palin backed off. These facts have been confirmed by multiple sources.
I have worked in Alaskan libraries for 20 years and can assure you that the story about Mary Ellen Emmons is true. After Palin was elected she did her darndest to work with her but the pressure to censor materials got to be too much and Mary Ellen resigned and moved across the state where she rebuilt her life and continues to work in a library. She is reluctant to bring up that part of her past. We all wish she would make a statement to the press, but you forget that Palin is still our Governor and she is one mean, small minded woman and we may need her support for our libraries in the future. There is SB119 waiting for funding right now, which would provide matching funds for new library construction and $$$ for our school libraries, for instance. Once you cross Ms. Sarah, she keeps you on her list for life.
Censorship is prior restraint on publication. Declining to distribute materials at public expense is not censorship. If your tax dollars are being spent in a manner which you find offensive you have every right to try to stop it.
Limiting public access to materials because some (usually a small, conservative, LOUD, minority) people have objections to content is a form of post-production censorship.If you check out the ALA list of previously banned or censored books, I think you’d be surprised. Even when dealing with children’s collections I completely believe that it is the parent’s job to decide what the child may and may not read–not the mayor’s.
I see now. You are right and I was wrong.
Lady Librarian
After reading through this article, I feel that I really need more info. Can you share some resources please?