Ask a librarian.

I had a few questions about the outcome of the Marshall Public Library controversy and the policy that’s currently being developed, despite strong reporting in the Democrat-News. One thing I wondered was if the developing guidelines were going to be applied to all new acquisitions and if that new additions to the collection would be suspended until the guidelines were in place.

Amy Crump, library director, was kind enough to answer my questions via e-mail:

“The library will not suspend shelving of all new acquisition until the new policy is developed and approved. In addition, books that are currently in the collection will not be examined one by one – we don’t have the staff for that type of job and that was never the Board’s goal. If at any point, other materials are challenged, they will be examined with the guidelines set by the policy.”

So the policy being developed is directed at challenged material rather than general collection development, if my understanding is correct. That puts a somewhat different complexion on the Board’s decision.

It seems the Marshall, MO Pubic Library Board of Trustees has evaded a final decision on whether Blankets and Fun Home belong on library shelves. Both Dirk Deppey and Newsarama’s Matt Brady (found via Blog@) have spoken to the Marshall Democrat-News to get a rundown of last night’s meeting. Instead of making a decision specific to the books in question, the Board decided to form a committee to write a “materials selection policy.”

From Newsarama:

“The proposal was agreed to unanimously, and until the policy has been written and adopted by the Board, the two books will remain out of circulation. After the policy is formed, the two books will be evaluated as to their suitableness for the library.”

Kudos to Democrat-News reporter Zack Sims for asking the first question that came to my mind:

“Sims told Newsarama that he asked if all the books in the library would be treated as such, and retroactively run through the yet-to-be-written policy, and said that he was led to believe that they wouldn’t, though the policy will be applied to every new book.”

It’s still unclear as to who will serve this policy committee. The librarians who are already doing materials selection in keeping with their education and training? Concerned citizens? Board of Trustees members? Some combination of the above?

Tom Spurgeon reacts to the pseudo-decision, noting its canniness (and lack of conviction):

“It’s still distressing, because the books are not shelved until the time of their re-evaluation, which in a way means that for now the board gets to avoid making a decision and the heat that comes with it, but still gets the books off the shelves.”

Over at The Beat, a Marshall resident voices displeasure. Final figures at the Democrat-News site indicate that 71.6% of the 303 voters in the paper’s on-line poll were opposed.

I’ll be curious to see how the “materials selection policy” develops, who has final say, and just how much additional work this will be for Marshall’s librarians. Because when was the last time you heard of an over-funded, over-staffed public library?

The hubbub in Marshall, MO, over Fun Home and Blankets made me think it was time to talk a walk down memory lane of other controversies that have flared up over graphic novels in libraries.

• High-school columnist objects to inclusion of “written garbage” like Mew Mew in school libraries in Maine. (Link)
• Shonen Jump pulled from Scholastic Book Fairs because “who knows what ‘teen’ means?” (Link)
• Florida parent shocked at content of Peach Girl. (Link)
• California library removes Paul Gravett’s Manga: 60 Years of Japanese Comics. (Link)

For anyone needing a palate cleanser, there’s always the American Library Association’s nominations for Great Graphic Novels for Teens, which includes recent additions like La Perdida, Pyonyang, Mom’s Cancer, American Born Chinese, and Life.

Isn’t it thrilling to see civic engagement in action?

“’We may as well purchase the porn shop down at the junction and move it to Eastwood. Some day this library will be drawing the same clientele,’ [concerned citizen Louise] Mills said.”

In my mind, I picture several of the citizens attending the meeting uncomfortably adjusting their collars and praying they had the presence of mind to shred or burn their porn shop receipts. Honestly, can the two audiences really be entirely mutually exclusive? Are people using the library’s internet terminals just to look up recipes?

“’I don’t want seedy people coming into the library and moving into our community,’ [Sarah] Aulgur said.”

Because nothing… nothing… gives a community the wrong kind of reputation like the knowledge that their libraries make room on the shelves for graphic-novel autobiographies. Aulgur’s comment also suggests that the Marshall library has some kind of Studio 54 velvet rope thing going on, and only the pure of heart, the non-seedy, are granted admission. Perhaps Aulgur doesn’t fully understand the library’s function as a resource for the entire populace, even if they’re seedy.

“’It’s not a matter of censorship,’ John Raines of Marshall said, ‘but a matter of looking out for our kids.’”

Hey, now! It can be about both. Because really, looking out for kids can and has been used to justify attempts to restrict, isolate, or condemn virtually every type of human behavior. It almost leads one to believe that the logical continuation of Raines’s statement would be, “Censorship is just a happy fringe benefit.”

“’If it shouldn’t be on a billboard on I-70, it shouldn’t be in a public library,’ Mark Lockhart said.”

Now, see, I drive I-70 a few times a year, and there are billboards for gambling, guns, gentlemen’s clubs (featuring conveniently placed poles), and reputable purveyors of adult novelties.

I have to say that I’m impressed with how resolute the Marshall library staff is being, especially when you compare it to their colleagues to the west.