The current debate about sexually graphic and violent books at the Denver Public Library reflects both the traditional battle that communities have waged against libraries for centuries, and a newer frontier promulgated by English-only proponents.
U.S. libraries aspire to be neutral repositories of information that are accessible to as many people as possible, delivering data in whatever format is easiest for residents to use. Libraries make very few value judgments about information, and when they do, it’s usually in the direction of inclusion rather than exclusion.
For example, librarians believe it’s important to provide access to government documents, public records and a wide array of reference materials, so this information is part of most collections. They also believe it’s important to match the varied interests of people in the community.
When libraries cull their collections, they’re more likely to remove a book that hasn’t been checked out in years than to discard a popular tome because it has objectionable content.
Libraries work hard to avoid censorship. They don’t disparage the materials that their customers utilize, and whenever possible, they try to give users privacy and anonymity as they peruse books, magazines, videos and Internet sites.
In some ways, libraries seek to be simple, non-discriminating conduits of information, like telephone wires or cable lines. But it’s precisely this neutral, non-judgmental approach that has always put them at odds with communities who wanted them to be gatekeepers of information.
Today, the argument at the Denver Public Library is focused on graphic cartoon images in Spanish-language novellas, but this is just the latest chapter in a long battle over censorship. The American Library Association maintains a list of the 100 most frequently challenged books. Among the top 10 are: “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” by Maya Angelou, “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” by Mark Twain, “Of Mice and Men,” by John Steinbeck, and the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling.
That’s not to say that the illustrated novellas in question are on par with these great works, but history suggests that the public library will get through the review of the content of these books and find a balance that works for the community.
But what about Spanish-language books? Many people have argued that it’s inappropriate for the library to purchase books in languages other than English. They suspect that the library is catering to illegal immigrants, and they fear that offering government or quasi-government services in other languages will threaten the supremacy of English in the United States.
I don’t know whether the fears of English defenders are legitimate or overblown, but in either case, it’s not the library’s job to care.
Arguing that certain books shouldn’t be in the library is like arguing that certain words shouldn’t be in the dictionary. The editors of dictionaries are neutral observers of society. They don’t determine or reflect a community’s values; they simply add any new word or fresh definition of an old word that has become part of the common lexicon.
Libraries respond to the interests of the populations they serve. The 2000 Census revealed that Denver was about 32 percent Hispanic, and 21 percent of city residents spoke Spanish at home. That’s reality. We may not like it and we may want to change it, but we can’t expect the library to ignore this huge segment of its constituency.
And this isn’t an illegal immigration issue. There are many legal Denver residents, including me, who want to read books in Spanish. I’m trying to learn the language, and Spanish-language children’s books are written at a level that I can understand.
Debates about library content are important, but we should remember that libraries exist to provide access to information, not to restrict it.
