This is not the longer posting (see here for that). But our library received yet another challenge to "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," apparently based on my earlier response.
First, this new patron stated her belief that the topic of a gay wedding is inappropriate because same sex marriage is illegal in 48 states, and specifically, in Colorado. Second, she claimed that she knows at least 100 people ready to fill out a petition against the book.
In response to the first point, I pointed out that we don't know where "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" takes place -- it could be in California or Massachusetts. It could be in Canada. It could be in a wholly fictitious universe with its own laws. Nonetheless, I wrote, "This principle would seem to require librarians to be familiar with all Colorado laws, and to read each work we purchase, or consider purchasing, to determine whether any of the characters might violate those laws [no matter where or when they live]. Thousands and thousands of our books feature true or fictional tales of murder, robbery, kidnapping – all of which violate Colorado laws. Under this principle, there could be no books in the library in which characters escape from one country to enter another illegally – not even in [or from, which is what I meant] Nazi Germany – because that would violate Colorado immigration laws. The story of Robin Hood, in which a thief and robber is regarded as a hero, would also be forbidden." I concluded that the principle, in general, would be impossible for libraries to apply.
In response to the second, I offered to meet with the group of 100 people who share her perspective. I wrote, "To your mind, I suspect, the issue is about advocacy for a perspective you oppose. To mine, it's about the role of the public library as common and neutral ground, as a steward of public funds to represent all of the public. It's a fair topic, and certainly deserving of community discussion."
Alternatively, there are two other options: appeal my decision to the Board, or fill out the petition, give me a contact person, and I could respond to that person based on the arguments it presented.
I don't know yet where it goes from here. But it seems clear that this is an organized effort, and that my last response has been shared. I wanted to record the argument used, however, and my response to it.
First, this new patron stated her belief that the topic of a gay wedding is inappropriate because same sex marriage is illegal in 48 states, and specifically, in Colorado. Second, she claimed that she knows at least 100 people ready to fill out a petition against the book.
In response to the first point, I pointed out that we don't know where "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" takes place -- it could be in California or Massachusetts. It could be in Canada. It could be in a wholly fictitious universe with its own laws. Nonetheless, I wrote, "This principle would seem to require librarians to be familiar with all Colorado laws, and to read each work we purchase, or consider purchasing, to determine whether any of the characters might violate those laws [no matter where or when they live]. Thousands and thousands of our books feature true or fictional tales of murder, robbery, kidnapping – all of which violate Colorado laws. Under this principle, there could be no books in the library in which characters escape from one country to enter another illegally – not even in [or from, which is what I meant] Nazi Germany – because that would violate Colorado immigration laws. The story of Robin Hood, in which a thief and robber is regarded as a hero, would also be forbidden." I concluded that the principle, in general, would be impossible for libraries to apply.
In response to the second, I offered to meet with the group of 100 people who share her perspective. I wrote, "To your mind, I suspect, the issue is about advocacy for a perspective you oppose. To mine, it's about the role of the public library as common and neutral ground, as a steward of public funds to represent all of the public. It's a fair topic, and certainly deserving of community discussion."
Alternatively, there are two other options: appeal my decision to the Board, or fill out the petition, give me a contact person, and I could respond to that person based on the arguments it presented.
I don't know yet where it goes from here. But it seems clear that this is an organized effort, and that my last response has been shared. I wanted to record the argument used, however, and my response to it.
Comments
You hang in there. You're doing great, answering with thought and care, and I'm proud of you.
No one should have the right to dictate what others may express or hear. The United States government and constitution was, as you point out, created in part to *protect* its citizens from such oppression, not to promote it.
I found the description of the book to be very misleading. Jamie is a gender neutral name and I am sure the author knew this.
I did not realize what the book was about until about the 10th page...or the page that states Chloe would have two uncles. We are a Christian family but also understand we cannot shelter our children. This is a topic they will have to face and fully plan on teaching them about it, but want to explain it ourselves, or at least be given the opportunity to choose the book that best suits our family when the time comes.
This was a book that was within reach of my 4 year old, in the childrens picture book section with no description of it being about homosexuality and I feel that is wrong. Why did the author feel she needed to be deceptive?
I don't think the book should be removed...there are families where this lifestyle is acceptable and their children need outlets as well...but why can't it be in a separate section? For both parties benefits...or clearly labeled so the parent at least has a fair shot at getting what he or she feels is an acceptable book for their child, without having to read it word for word before checking it out.
You know, I think we have just five picture books titles in our entire 700,000+ collection in which there is any mention of homosexuality at all. It's hard to make a section out of five books! And even if we broaden that to say "everything that might be controversial," then I have to report that after working over a quarter of a century, I've learned that that means virtually every book we've got.
As I noted in my longer posting about the subject, the real point of the book isn't about gay marriage. It's about Chloe (the young girl guinea pig) being afraid of losing her favorite uncle to another relationship. Yes, it does present the gay marriage as just a background issue, but that just means the author sees it that way, too. Lots of children's authors write books to present a perspective they wish they'd encountered when they were young.
At any rate, thanks for taking your daughter to the library, and caring about what she reads.
Thank you for fighting the good fight.