New
Teen Sections at County Libraries Stocked with Sexually Explicit Materials
Commentary
by Dan Kleinman
Teen readership in public libraries has been
declining for decades. Libraries have responded appropriately by engaging teens
in various ways. Gaming, for example, is the latest trend. (1) But some efforts
to reach out to teens have caused people to question their library’s tactics.
When the Daniel Boone branch of the St. Louis County Library (2) was
remodeled, a section of the library devoted just to teens was created.
So far, so good. But, as St. Louis County resident Laura Kostial and
her eleven year old daughter found out last summer, sexually inappropriate
material for children was part of the teen collection. (3)
According to Mrs. Kostial, many of the books
contained “explicit instructions on how to engage in heterosexual,
homosexual, and monosexual activities.” One book, Making Sexual
Decisions: A Teen Guide provides teens with advice on how to know if they
are ready to become sexually active. The book instructs children as young as
eleven that if they can “do the Hokey-Pokey, naked in front of your partner
(not while high or drunk) and have a good time doing it, then you might be ready
to have sex.” Another title, Growing Up Gay in America,
provides children with step-by-step instructions for engaging in homosexual sex
acts and how to surf the web for homosexual pornography among other things.
Mrs. Kostial and other members of the St.
Louis community requested that the sexually graphic and age inappropriate
material be moved from the teen section to the adult section. They did not ask
for the material to be censored, removed from the library’s collection, nor
placed under lock and key.
As a result, St. Louis County Library
Director Charles Pace, who is also an American Library Association (ALA)
Councilor, said he would set up a review committee to look into the placement
of the materials in question. Mrs.
Kostial offered to fill out a form that’s part of the official procedure for
requesting such an action but Pace told her that wouldn’t be necessary because
he knew which books were of concern.
Although the library’s process for requesting reconsideration of the
material was not strictly followed, the library did offer to conduct a
reconsideration. (4 & 5)
The following month Pace denied most of Mrs.
Kostial and the other citizens’ requests but stated that he “might” move
two titles, Growing Up Gay in America and What are the Causes of Prostitution, to the adult section.
Unfortunately, to the best of Mrs. Kostial’s
knowledge, none of the books she had questioned were removed from the teen
area. Pace did however indicate that a
book entitled What are the Causes of
Prostitution was moved to the adult section. Strangely enough, that was not one of the
books Mrs. Kostial had asked the library to review. She asked them to review a similarly titled
book, Prostitution and Sex Trafficking,
which (at press time) still remains in the teen department along with Growing Up Gay in America.
In response, members of the community
attended the St. Louis County Library Board’s annual tax assessment meeting on
August 18th in the hopes of reaching an agreement with the library board and
county administrators to establish an adult advisory board to help aid in the
selection of material for the teen department. At present, the library relies
on an advisory board comprised of teenagers to aid in their collection
development process. (6) Certainly adult citizens should have input as
well. [MetroVoice will report on the
outcome of the August 18th meeting in our October issue.]
Preparing for Deception
In preparation for the August 18th meeting,
Pace decided to go outside St. Louis County to the American Library Association
(ALA) for guidance on combating the community effort 
regarding
book collection policies and practices.
For those not familiar with the ALA (7), it
is the oldest and largest library association in the world. With the
influence of a former Illinois ACLU Board member, the ALA changed its mission
from one of protecting children from harm into one that now claims it is ‘age
discrimination’ for a librarian to keep a child from any material whatsoever.
(8) Nowadays, for example, the ALA awards books containing oral sex as
the best books of the year for children as young as twelve but provides no
notice as to the content other than why it claims it is award winning. I
personally got the author of one such book to admit he wouldn’t even give his
own 12-year-old (if he had one) such a book. (9)
Pace asks all ALA Councilors (10):
“Dear Colleagues:
I wanted to make you aware of an
intellectual freedom/censorship issue we are facing here in St. Louis County. A
well organized group calling itself ‘Citizens Against Pornography’ is upset
about some of the materials that we have in our teen collections. Rather than
go through the normal materials reconsideration process their solution is to
create a citizen review committee to ‘give input into the collection
development process,’ no doubt they would expect such a committee to be staffed
by their appointees. Needless to say we are adamantly opposed to such a step
and will resist any efforts to create what is in effect a censorship committee.
I am curious to know though if any of you in public library settings have
experienced similar efforts lately and if so what the outcome was. I look
forward to hearing from you.
Charles Pace ALA Councilor-At-Large”
In response to Pace’s plea for guidance he
received two very eye opening responses from two other ALA Councilors. The
remainder of this article will discuss the original message from Charles Pace,
the responses, and the implications thereof. Note, the ALA provides
advice on this topic in Coping with Challenges;
Strategies and Tips for Dealing with Challenges to Library Materials. (11)
The
Responses
ALA Councilor James Casey of the Oak Lawn
Public Library in Oak Lawn, IL, was the first to respond to Pace’s
request. Casey nicely summarizes the strategy used to undermine local
control of public libraries. It’s surprising to see such a public
admission, including media manipulation.
Then ALA Councilor Sue Kamm of the Inglewood
Public Library in Los Angeles, CA responded. Her response basically
suggested that the subject should not be discussed in a public forum.
Instead, private inquiry should be made to an ALA entity specifically designed
to ensure communities remain adherent to ALA policy instead of local law and
policy.
Casey responds to all (12):
”Charles:
Oak Lawn Public Library was subjected to
very serious pressure from censor groups and became a major feature of their
accusations on blogs and websites. http://www.safelibraries.org/ I’m
afraid that it ‘goes with the territory’. I would advise that your library be
firm in resisting their demands, but avoid getting into arguments and ‘back and
forth’ in the local media. A polite, dignified statement by your Board should
be sufficient. Continue referring to that statement of principle when asked about
the issue and try to move the attention of local media to more positive matters
such as your programs, circulation, construction plans, long range plan, etc.
The storm will die down when the media becomes bored and moves on to other
issues.--- It has long been my contention that censors are less interested in
removing items from your collection than there are in posturing in an
ostentatious manner as champions of righteousness. The more you argue with them
or discuss their demands in a public forum, the more publicity they receive. If
you accept their demands, it will only lead to more demands since their real
motive is to remain in the public spotlight. A citizens committee’ would give
them a long term ‘soap box’ and might even become a political factor. You were
wise to resist this demand.
Good Luck! Jim Casey – Councilor-at-Large”
Then ALA Councilor Sue Kamm reveals some
behind the scenes help was provided to Pace. She reminds other ALA Councilors
of the existence of the ALA’s “Office for Intellectual Freedom” for the very
purpose of defeating local opposition to ALA agenda. Sue Kamm said (13):
“I replied privately to Charles, but I
want to remind Councilors (and others) who face issues such as his that the
Office for Intellectual Freedom is well-equipped to help people deal with them.
Your friendly
neighborhood CyberGoddess and ALA Councilor at Large,
Sue Kamm
Email: suekamm[at]mindspring.com
Inglewood/Los Angeles, CA
Visit my blog: http://suekamm.blogspot.com”
Analysis
of the Responses
Here is an analysis of the above ALA
messages. It’s a prime example of how the ALA colludes to thwart local
citizen control over their community libraries. Pay attention, St. Louis,
you are the latest community under the ALA’s spotlight.
Pace sounds reasonable when he says, “Rather
than go through the normal materials reconsideration process their solution is
to create a citizen review committee....” Materials reconsideration processes are normal
in many public libraries. The ALA guides libraries on how to produce such
policies. Generally, the policies ensure proper application of library policies
to library materials removal suggestions. While the policies may slow the
process of reconsideration, they allow for a fair set of rules to be known and
followed by all involved.
Regarding Pace’s complaint about a material
reconsideration process being sidestepped, that is a legitimate concern. And, it is legitimate that Pace brought this
matter before the ALA 
Council.
The ALA Council “is the governing body of ALA. It delegates to the divisions
of the Association authority to plan and carry out programs and activities
with policy established by Council.” (14)
Pace is asking the Council for help with
people he claims are trying to do an end run around the materials reconsideration
policy. But that’s where the reasonable
nature of the request stops. He immediately mischaracterizes the issue as one
involving ‘censorship’, and he calls a “citizen review committee...what is
in effect a censorship committee.” Mind you, the committee is nothing more
than a notion at this point and already it is being labeled as a ‘censorship
committee.’ Prejudice anyone?
And the actual remedy being sought by the “censorship
committee” is the placement of material that may be sexually inappropriate
for children into the adult section of the library instead of the teen section.
That is not censorship by any definition of the word.
The most pernicious aspect of Pace’s letter
though is not what he said. It is what he did not say. Recall he said “Rather than go through the
normal materials reconsideration process their solution is to create a citizen
review committee....” Recall I said
it was reasonable to impose a materials reconsideration process. It is. But,
what Mr. Pace did not reveal is that the materials in question have already
been through the materials review process. He
has already moved one book (What are the
Causes of Prostitution) to the adult section and said he “might” move Growing Up Gay in America but has not
done so at press time.
So the materials review process about which
he complains is attempting to be sidestepped has already taken place. And the ‘censorship’ about which he complains
(moving books from the teen section to the adult section) he himself has
already accomplished. He has ‘censored’ in the very same manner for which
accuses Citizens Against Pornography of trying to do. I find this an
outrageous double standard and it appears to be an intentional omission. He has
committed the very act of ‘censorship’ himself which he claims Citizens Against
Pornography is attempting to do by the establishment of a citizens advisory
board – the very reason he sought council from the ALA in the first place.
As a result of Pace’s actions, or rather
inactions, in furtherance of his official duties in the St. Louis County
Library, Citizens Against Pornography has been forced into the position of
stepping into the breech. In doing so, it has opened itself up for criticism by
the very person acting to ensure community wishes are thwarted and ALA policies
are applied. As Pace said, “Needless to say we are adamantly opposed to such
a step and will resist any efforts to create what is in effect a censorship
committee.” What hubris to think he can thwart community efforts to restore
library control to the community. What hubris to complain about censorship when
he knows it is a false issue and something he has already committed by moving
one book from the teen section to the adult section.
I urge citizens of St. Louis County to take
careful note of Charles Pace’s conduct and community manipulation tactics.
Imagine, reaching out to a nationwide network of ALA policy makers to help
defeat the efforts of local citizens who are attempting to protect children
from inappropriate material.
Everyone is supposed to forget the 2003 US
Supreme Court case the ALA lost when it and the ACLU attempted together to
overturn the Children’s Internet Protection Act. The Court said, “The
interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for
minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear
to agree.” (15)
Are citizens supposed to take no action and
just let Charles Pace run the library in a manner that harms children despite
the law, the Court, community standards, and his own agreement? I urge
St. Louis citizens to take note and act to do what is right to correct this
wrong.
Mislead
the Media
Turning now to James Casey, head librarian
at the Oak Lawn Public Library in Oak Lawn, IL, his response is illustrative of
the anti-community attitude of some ALA members. Indeed, despite the Oak Lawn
community and government’s best efforts, Playboy Magazine is still
available to children via photocopy in Casey’s ALA-controlled library. And he’s
the guy giving advice to Charles Pace about how to defeat St. Louis community
members.
The de facto leader of the ALA is Judith
Krug. (16) Consider what she said, “Parents
who would tell their children not to read Playboy ‘don’t really care about
their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.’” (17) And specifically regarding the Oak Lawn
matter, she said, “I get very concerned when we start hearing people who
want to convert this country into a safe place for children.” (18) “Blocking
material leads to censorship. That goes for pornography and bestiality, too. If
you don’t like it, don’t look at it ... Every time I hear someone say, I want
to protect the children, I want to pull my hair out.” (19) Is it any wonder why Casey thwarted the Oak
Lawn community from preventing its children’s access to Playboy?
Casey uses the ‘censorship’ boogeyman, just
like Pace. He advises resisting community efforts (“I would advise that your
library be firm in resisting their demands”), just like Charles Pace. But
he goes further and advises media deception (“Continue referring to that
statement of principle when asked about the issue and try to move the attention
of local media to more positive matters such as your programs, circulation,
construction plans, long range plan, etc. The storm will die down when the
media becomes bored and moves on to other issues.”), only this time he is
acting in accordance with ALA directives. Casey then expands his deceptive
tactics by resorting to ad hominem argument (“censors are less interested in
removing items from your collection than there are in posturing in an
ostentatious manner as champions of righteousness”). Lastly, he suggests
quelling anything that may give local citizens an advantage against ALA policy
and even lead to a political advantage for the opponents of the application of
ALA policy in local libraries (“A ‘citizens committee’ would give them a
long term ‘soap box’ and might even become a political factor. You were wise to
resist this demand.”).
Regarding the media deception, the ALA advises
exactly what Casey suggests to Pace. For example: “Q. Isn’t it true
librarians allow children to get pornography on the 
Internet?
A. Absolutely not. Our role is to help children learn to use the Internet
wisely and to help guide them to all the great sites that are out there.”
(20) A truthful answer would have been something like “it depends
on the librarian, but the ALA Library Bill of Rights holds it is ‘age discrimination’
for a librarian to keep a child from any material whatsoever as only a parent
may do that,” (21, 22 & 23) and it would not have strayed into irrelevant
information (“‘Bridge’ to the positive. When asked a ‘negative’ question,
answer briefly without repeating any ‘hot’ or negative words. Add a positive
statement.” ) (20).
So Casey and the ALA both guide Pace to
mislead the media, then misdirect the media. And they are willing to do
so publicly, likely because of how successfully it works. The St. Louis
community can count on Charles Pace to do exactly this, and it appears he
already has a good start. Hopefully, the St. Louis community and media
will not be so easily fooled now that it has notice of the media manipulation tactics.
People of all races, creeds, religions,
political parties, etc., oppose allowing children access to inappropriate
sexual material. James Casey’s ad hominem arguments are not the
issue. The issue is community control over public libraries. By
smearing SafeLibraries as he has, Mr. Casey occludes the issue that
we are all here for, namely, local control of libraries that refuse to act in
the interests of the community. Casey maintains ALA control in Oak Lawn
despite community efforts, children still have access to Playboy, and
now he is advising Charles Pace on how to maintain ALA control in St. Louis
County despite community efforts.
Casey says “their [meaning parents/organizations
who do not want children exposed to inappropriate books in public and school
libraries] real motive is to remain in the public spotlight.”
False! My real motive is the possibility that the ALA’s control over
local public libraries results in numerous rapes (24) and molestations (25)
of children nationwide, among other things, and if SafeLibraries exposes the
ALA propaganda and provides eye opening information, communities may decide
for themselves to take back control of the public libraries from the ALA and
return it where it belongs--the public. The 'real motive' is educating
citizens that the ALA often misleads local libraries that then do not use
legal means available to protect children. For example, they may refuse to
use Internet filters claiming they simply do not work when in reality even
the ACLU says they are over 95% effective and no longer block health-related
information. (26) Or libraries following
ALA policy will allow anything at all in the library when in reality the local
law used to create the library may legally restrict certain material without
fear of “censorship.” Citizens want
to make informed decisions, and the ALA is simply misinforming them.
The lesson, of course, for the St. Louis
community is that Charles Pace will likely make a steady stream of ad hominem
arguments against Citizens Against Pornography and its members. By this
means the media will be distracted from the real issues, so people cannot be
fully informed that libraries are supposed to be responsive to local
communities, not to the ALA.
ALA Councilor Sue Kamm provides the icing on
the cake. She subtly advises ALA Councilors not to conduct such public
conversations, and instead to use the services of the ALA’s “Office for Intellectual
Freedom.” (OIF) That ‘office’ is so dedicated to training people
on how to thwart local control over public libraries, that it refused my admission
into one of its training classes. Although I initially fulfilled the
requirements for admission, the OIF invaded my privacy by investigating my
background then used that information to raise new hurdles again and again
to preclude me from its training sessions. (27) Their actions may
be a violation of law and of professional ethics so I’m contemplating legal
action.
You
Have Been Warned
In conclusion, the St. Louis County
community can expect the St. Louis County Library to use every means at its
disposal, including media manipulation, to ensure ALA control of the public
library. Community standards and law will be thwarted and children will
remain at a heightened risk of harm unless the community considers carefully
the implications of Charles Pace’s communications with the ALA Council and the
Council’s responses.
I am certain a review of St. Louis County
library law will reveal that the library was created for specific purposes, and
the anything-goes policy of the ALA is not included. The community has every
right and duty to make the library responsive to the community, not to the
ALA. If the library is acting outside the law, that only makes things
worse.
I urge the citizens of St. Louis County to
carefully examine the law and the facts and act accordingly in their own
interest. Carefully review any statement from Charles Pace for
misinformation or misdirection. You are now on notice of the ALA’s
tactics and your library director’s adherence to them; he reached out to the
ALA for direction, not to the community. You control the library, not the
ALA.
Publisher’s
Note...
Please be advised that not all St. Louis
County Library branches have the books mentioned in this commentary in their
teen section. To find out which branches do have these books, and other
objectionable materials, visit the St. Louis County Library website
www.stcl.org and do a search through their on-line catalog for the titles.
Endnotes
(1)
“Gaming @ Your Library 2008,” American Library Association, 18 April 2008.
http://www.ala.org/gaming/ (Accessed 9 August 2008). Document ID: 463962.
(2)
http://www.slcl.org/branches/db/
(3)
“Innocence Lost at the Library,” by Erika Paul, Missouri Eagle Forum Eagle
Watch, Summer 2008.
http://www.moeagle.org/moeagle/pdf/MEFNsummer2008.pdf (Accessed
9 August 2008).
(4)
“Library Director Charles Pace said they do have the displays with the types of
materials in question in stock; however, he said that personnel were not
authorized to place them where they were placed. He said that library officials
will carefully look at the materials and will determine in a matter of a few
weeks if they will be moved to another part of the library. He said there are
approximately 17 books to review and they will look at the work as a
whole.”
“Residents
Concerned About Sexually Explicit Materials at County Library,” by Ted Dixon,
Jr., West Newsmagazine, 19 September 2007.
(5)
“St. Louis Library Accuses Patron of Creating Controversial Display,” by Debra
Lau Whelan, School Library Journal, 9 October 2007.
http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6488293.html
(Accessed 10 August 2008).
(6)
“Teens’ Zone; St. Louis County Library; Advisory Group,” St. Louis County
Library.
http://www.slcl.org/teens/advisory/ (Accessed
8 August 2008).
(7)
http://www.ala.org/
(8)
“The Internet and the Seduction of the American Public Library,” by Helen
Chaffee Biehle, Family Friendly Libraries, 15 January 2000.
http://www.fflibraries.org/The_Internet_And_the_Seduction_of_the_American_Public_Library.html (Accessed
9 August 2008).
(9)
“Porn Pushers – The ALA and Looking For Alaska – One Example of How the ALA
Pushes Porn On Children,” by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries.org, 27 March 2006.
http://www.safelibraries.org/pushers.htm (Accessed 9 August 2008).
(10)
“[alacoun] Censorship issue,” by Charles Pace, American Library Association, 5
August 2008. http://lists.ala.org/sympa/arc/alacoun/2008-08/msg00008.html
(Accessed 7 August 2008).
(11)
“Coping with Challenges; Strategies and Tips for Dealing with Challenges to
Library Materials,”American Library Association, 29 May 2007.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/challengesupport/dealing/copingchallengesstrategies.cfm
(Accessed 8 August 2008). Document ID: 388260.
(12)
“[alacoun] RE: Censorship issue,” by James Casey, American Library Association,
5 August 2008. http://lists.ala.org/sympa/arc/alacoun/2008-08/msg00009.html
(Accessed 7 August 2008).
(13)
“[alacoun] RE: Censorship issue,” by Sue Kamm, American Library Association, 5
August 2008. http://lists.ala.org/sympa/arc/alacoun/2008-08/msg00014.html
(Accessed 7 August 2008).
(14)
“Council Composition and Charge,” American Library Association, 30 June 2006.
http://www.ala.org/ala/ourassociation/governanceb/council/council.cfm (Accessed
7 August 2008). Document ID: 24527.
(15) United States v. American Library Assn., Inc., 539 U.S. 194 (2003).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html (Accessed 8 August 2008).
(16)
“Editorial: The Krug Contribution; She Convinced ALA to Put its Money Where its
Mouth Is,” by John N. Berry III, Library Journal, 15 June 2005.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA606394.html (Accessed 10 August 2008).
(17)
“What Lurks in the Library? - The American Library Association Believes
Children Should Have Access to All Material, No Matter How Violent or Obscene,”
by Scott DeNicola, Citizen, 18 September 1995. http://preview.tinyurl.com/8d33s
(Accessed 8 August 2008).
(18)
“Oak Lawn Library Vows to Keep Playboy on Shelf,” by Jo Napolitano, Chicago
Tribune, 23 June 2005. http://preview.tinyurl.com/6myk74 (Accessed 8 August
2008).
(19)
“Preventing Kids From Seeing Illegal Smut Is Not Unconstitutional; It’s Common
Sense,” by Janet M. LaRue, National Center for Policy Analysis: Idea House,
2001. http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/krt/krt051700a.html (Accessed 8 August
2008).
(20)
“What To Do When the Media Calls,” American Library Association, 20 October
2006.
http://www.ala.org/ala/pio/mediarelationsa/mediarelations/whatdowhenmedia.cfm
(Accessed 8 August 2008). Document ID: 228848.
(21)
“Library Bill of Rights,” American Library Association, 24 June 1996.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cfm
(Accessed 10 August 2008). Document ID: 24930.
(22)
“Access for Children and Young Adults to Non-print Materials; An Interpretation
of the Library Bill of Rights,” American Library Association, 30 June 2004.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/accesschildren.cfm
(Accessed 10 August 2008). Document ID: 45574.
(23)
“Dealing with Concerns about Library Resources,” American Library Association,
17 November 2000.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/challengesupport/dealing/dealingconcerns.cfm
(Accessed 10 August 2008). Document ID: 388261.
(24)
http://delicious.com/plan2succeed/rape (Accessed 10 August 2008).
(25) http://delicious.com/plan2succeed/molestation
(Accessed 10 August 2008).
(26)
ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp. 2d (E.D. Pa. 2007).
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf
(Accessed 13 August 2008).
(27)
“Unequal Access,” by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries.org, undated.
http://www.safelibraries.org/unequalaccess.htm (Accessed 8 August 2008).
About seven years ago, Dan Kleinman
began focusing attention on ALA policies that may hurt children when his kindergartner
was given inappropriate material in a public school by an ALA librarian using
an ALA list of books for kindergartners. In an effort to protect his
own child from further exposure, he quickly found he could not protect one
child without protecting them all in any library under ALA sway. So he
founded Plan2Succeed Citizen’s Group in Chatham, NJ, resulting in the partial
victory of getting his public library to install Internet filters on some
computers, then joined forces with SafeLibraries.org (http://www.safelibraries.org/)
to which he now devotes all of his time educating people to follow judicial
and community standards and local law instead of blindly following the ALA’s
radical dictates. He is consulted by people nationwide for his expertise
in library safety issues resulting from the ALA’s vice grip on local community
libraries, as illustrated here in St. Louis County, and he provides such people
with a forum for public disclosure untainted by the media filter. As
a result, the ALA hypocritically blocks him attending its training classes
or appearing opposite ALA representatives on national news broadcasts.
Mr. Kleinman also lectures on child safety on the Internet. His
new blog at http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/ has the latest in controversial
library issues and he invites our readers to comment online. He may
be reached at SafeLibraries@gmail.com.
