[This column appeared in the September 25, 2024 issue of the Sopris Sun.]
When I was 13, I kissed a girl. Many times. I was feeling pretty good about it until I overheard my mother, a head nurse at the Veterans Administration hospital, mention something to a colleague over the phone about the treatment of venereal disease.
When you wanted to learn about something in those days, long before the internet, you went to the library. In the dictionary, I found out that venereal disease (see syphilis and gonorrhea) was the result of sexual activity.
Kissing, it sure seemed to me, was sexual. Then I looked up syphilis and gonorrhea in the encyclopedia. There were pictures. It was horrifying. It was also a little unclear how you got the diseases.
In something approaching panic, I dove into the card catalog. (This was before computer catalogs, too.) I looked up the logical heading: “Sex.”
And right there on the main card was typed “For Sex: See Librarian.”
I want to make it clear that the library was not offering sexual services. I think the idea was that if you wanted any information about the topic you were supposed to talk to the staff. But there was no way I was going to ask one of the prim ladies at the reference desk if I was coming down with a sexually transmitted disease. I wasn’t going to ask my mother, either.
I know that there are many people who very much like this arrangement. They think, if you just don’t tell the children about sex, or at least make it a little harder to find out about it, the problem goes away!
Is anyone surprised to learn that the teenage pregnancy rate of the time was quite a bit higher than it is today? After 40 years of professional library experience, I’ve learned that the best protection against attempts to sexually exploit children is not ignorance. It is knowledge, often provided by the schools and libraries now under attack. (And they are under attack as never before. See below.)
In much the same way, some folks don’t think we should talk about LGBTQ+ issues, either. But ignorance and bigotry serve predators, not their prey.
I know some people argue that putting information “behind the desk” isn’t censorship. After all, the book is still there. But when you make it harder to find information, the information doesn’t get used — even by the people most in need of it.
Books that get used stick around. We buy extra copies. Books that don’t get used get weeded — removed to make way for things that have a better chance of finding a reader. Putting books out of sight helps get rid of them. That’s the point.
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (or OIF, where I used to be the executive director) documented 1,247 demands to censor library books and resources in 2023. They report, “The number of titles targeted for censorship surged 65% in 2023 compared to 2022, reaching the highest levels ever documented by OIF in more than 20 years of tracking: 4,240 unique book titles were targeted for removal from schools and libraries. This tops the previous high from 2022, when 2,571 unique titles were targeted for censorship. Titles representing the voices and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals made up 47% of those targeted in censorship attempts.”
In response, the American Library Association created a website called Unite Against Book Bans (www.uniteagainstbookbans.org). I recommend it. There are loads of tips on how to do everything from seeing what’s being challenged, to how to write a letter to the editor or testify in front of a school board.
On Oct. 19, the Garfield County Public Library District will host a Unite Against Book Bans rally at Centennial Park in Glenwood Springs. The event will run from 11am to noon. Children are welcome — and are in fact encouraged to dress up as their favorite character from a book. There will be prizes.
We’ll also have a few local speakers, but none of us will talk very long. After the costume judging, the event will end with a march to a government office to leave a petition.
Please join us for the celebration of the First Amendment freedom to read.
When I was 13, I kissed a girl. Many times. I was feeling pretty good about it until I overheard my mother, a head nurse at the Veterans Administration hospital, mention something to a colleague over the phone about the treatment of venereal disease.
When you wanted to learn about something in those days, long before the internet, you went to the library. In the dictionary, I found out that venereal disease (see syphilis and gonorrhea) was the result of sexual activity.
Kissing, it sure seemed to me, was sexual. Then I looked up syphilis and gonorrhea in the encyclopedia. There were pictures. It was horrifying. It was also a little unclear how you got the diseases.
In something approaching panic, I dove into the card catalog. (This was before computer catalogs, too.) I looked up the logical heading: “Sex.”
And right there on the main card was typed “For Sex: See Librarian.”
I want to make it clear that the library was not offering sexual services. I think the idea was that if you wanted any information about the topic you were supposed to talk to the staff. But there was no way I was going to ask one of the prim ladies at the reference desk if I was coming down with a sexually transmitted disease. I wasn’t going to ask my mother, either.
I know that there are many people who very much like this arrangement. They think, if you just don’t tell the children about sex, or at least make it a little harder to find out about it, the problem goes away!
Is anyone surprised to learn that the teenage pregnancy rate of the time was quite a bit higher than it is today? After 40 years of professional library experience, I’ve learned that the best protection against attempts to sexually exploit children is not ignorance. It is knowledge, often provided by the schools and libraries now under attack. (And they are under attack as never before. See below.)
In much the same way, some folks don’t think we should talk about LGBTQ+ issues, either. But ignorance and bigotry serve predators, not their prey.
I know some people argue that putting information “behind the desk” isn’t censorship. After all, the book is still there. But when you make it harder to find information, the information doesn’t get used — even by the people most in need of it.
Books that get used stick around. We buy extra copies. Books that don’t get used get weeded — removed to make way for things that have a better chance of finding a reader. Putting books out of sight helps get rid of them. That’s the point.
The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (or OIF, where I used to be the executive director) documented 1,247 demands to censor library books and resources in 2023. They report, “The number of titles targeted for censorship surged 65% in 2023 compared to 2022, reaching the highest levels ever documented by OIF in more than 20 years of tracking: 4,240 unique book titles were targeted for removal from schools and libraries. This tops the previous high from 2022, when 2,571 unique titles were targeted for censorship. Titles representing the voices and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals made up 47% of those targeted in censorship attempts.”
In response, the American Library Association created a website called Unite Against Book Bans (www.uniteagainstbookbans.org). I recommend it. There are loads of tips on how to do everything from seeing what’s being challenged, to how to write a letter to the editor or testify in front of a school board.
On Oct. 19, the Garfield County Public Library District will host a Unite Against Book Bans rally at Centennial Park in Glenwood Springs. The event will run from 11am to noon. Children are welcome — and are in fact encouraged to dress up as their favorite character from a book. There will be prizes.
We’ll also have a few local speakers, but none of us will talk very long. After the costume judging, the event will end with a march to a government office to leave a petition.
Please join us for the celebration of the First Amendment freedom to read.
Comments