Anonymous, “Dan, you aren’t going to win any fans by oversimplifying the debate and offering overheated rhetoric.” I don’t care about fans. I just report what no one else will report. Oversimplifying? Perhaps–we are talking about comments on blogs. Overheated rhetoric? That’s ad hominem. You are saying I lack sincerity or meaningful content. I have been saying for years that the ALA’s OIF is misleading communities into ignoring CIPA and thereby keeping their children exposed to the dangers CIPA was designed to stop. About two weeks ago the author of CIPA just said essentially the exact same thing. And absolutely no library media has covered that. So I neither lack sincerity nor meaningful content. Actually, I’m vaguely the Matt Drudge of the library world. I have the CIPA author backing up what I have been saying all this time. No library media has covered the CIPA author’s latest comments story. And you say I lack sincerity or meaningful content. Ad hominem arguments are a sure sign that someone is losing and has no legitimate argument to make. Happily, people like Will, AL, Jean, and many more have lost or are starting to lose their fear of the ALA’s OIF. People like myself are reporting library news no one else reports, and my reports are backed up by people like the CIPA author. Me? CIPA author backs me up. ALA? LJ? Silence on what the CIPA author exposed about the ALA that I’ve been exposing for years. Silence is an effective propaganda weapon in and of itself. Here is just the latest story pointing out the effect of silence–dated today: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/danish-tv-host-mocks-obama-his-rhetoric_634403.html And the ALA is all silence in spades. In contrast, I’m supposedly using “overheated rhetoric.” Sure. Nice try. It’s losing its luster. People, follow my blog for posts having information backed up with reliable sources like the CIPA author, or stick with the the ALA silence. Your choice.

Andrew, it’s no “logical gymnastics.” It’s simply reading what she said, and I quoted her accurately. And Jean points out it’s even a bigger story than just that. Andrew, your going after the messenger and avoiding the issues lets me know I’m pushing the right buttons.

Interesting that Ms. Millsap didn’t make any of the points you did. Instead she went on for 4 pages and at the end I was still unclear about the points she was trying to make. Her response required much more investment than yours and didn’t open up my thinking one bit. Pretty typical of the stuff I read originating from the library community.

As challenging as it can be, I’ll keep agitating for more focus and discrimation wrt to our public libraries. We’ve got great needs in this country and I believe our libraries are among our most potent resources for meeting them. Dialogue with folks like you and Will, and many others convince me of it.

Regarding the books in question, I certainly think these books are appropriate for the library. Yes, you and I can easily purchase off of Amazon. Let’s not ignore the digital divide: there are citizens who do not have home computers nor credit cards and therefore cannot make these purchases. They may come from a home where they would not be allowed to have these books (not necessarily youth, plenty of 20 and 30 somethings are living at home)and their only chance to consult them would be in a neutral space (the library). There is a need for accurate and knowledgeable information on sex in our communities. If there wasn’t, wouldn’t STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and date rape (to name a few) be eliminated?

Dan, you aren’t going to win any fans by oversimplifying the debate and offering overheated rhetoric.

Wouldn’t it be something to see someone coming forward to argue that the aforementioned titles promote a public good and merit public expenditure? Then, as local communities (and hopefully beyond) – wouldn’t it be great to see libraries be a nexus of dialogue about it? What is the public good and what promotes it? Where are the boundaries between public interests and private interests? And/or why do we say some material about sex is cultural and artistic and some is merely informative or practical? These are the meaningful discussions our society needs to have and that strong libraries could help foster.

In my view, defending objectionable material is not the issue. It is merely a subset of a larger issue that must be engaged, else these types of skirmishes will go on and on. The larger issue is: what do we want our public libraries to be and do. We haven’t engaged this question as a society in over a century. Instead, each year we spend billions (2009 public library operating revenue was $11.59 billion, per the IMLS Public Library Survey) to perpetuate an Institution with an ill-defined mission.

This inattention has allowed bureaucrats tasked with organizational self-preservation to hide behind statements like the one Ms. Millsap used in her concluding remarks: “Ultimately, access to information is the purpose of the public library in our society.”
This has become a library mantra, and I heartily reject it as much too vague and unmanageable. It provides no guidance or accountability. It leads to the inconclusive go-rounds we see about objectionable materials, infotainment driving circulation and a range of other matters that could be productively adjudicated if a clearer public library mission and transparent adjudication norms were in place.

The books in question here were The Joy of Sex, The Joy of Gay Sex, The Lesbian Kama Sutra and Sex for Busy People. Bookstores can justify distributing these titles with the simple statement “people want them and they drive revenue”. For a public institution, such straightforward justifaction “people want them and they drive circulation” is unacceptable. The reason is that we established public libraries and invest so heavily in them to help us lead healthy, productive public lives. This is complex and hard work. It requires continual engagement, evaluation, dialogue. A bookstore simply needs to give people what they want and make enough money to keep the doors open. The bar for a public library is much higher.

The library mission I advocate goes something like this: the role of our public libraries is to curate and make discoverable the best knowledge available to support the public good. This mission can be a catalyst for rich discussion: What does curation mean – what are the quality standards for evaluating content? What is the best way to make materials discoverable in the age of info abundance? What topics/materials serve the public good and what topics/materials serve a private good? To meaningfully engage these questions is to chart a course for 21st century librarians that curriculum and professional standards can be built around. It can also help adjudicate issues like the book challenges in question.

Here’s how this mission would help me address the issue Ms. Millsap responded to in 2009. I do not support including the aforementioned books in a public library collection – not because they deal with sex, per se, but because they would not foster public engagement (at least in most places I know). Can I imagine two people in a public space (like a public library) conversing about the latest John Grisholm novel, a local government ordinance, DIY home repair, or the latest book by Thomas Friedman That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It Invented and How We Can Come Back? Would these conversations be inviting to other people in the public space and foster increased participation? I think they would. On the other hand, can I imagine two people openly discussing whether it’s possible for men to have multiple orgasms or sex position #69 in the lesbian karma sutra — and would these conversations be inviting to other members of the community? I doubt it.

I did a quick Amazon search and The New Joy of Sex is available used, in hardcover, with free shipping for $3.98. The New Joy of Gay Sex is available used, in hardcover for $1.06 + $3.99 shipping. As we all know, Amazon is only one of many options for obtaining this material easily and inexpensively. I have absolutely no problem with people accessing this material — I simply don’t think it’s the role of a public library to make it available. There are far more things to spend public funds on that would better serve the public.

Digital technology has created the need for new organizing principles around information and knowledge. In my view, this creates an opportunity for a renaissance within librarianship. I have a vision for how this can happen and am working on a monograph that lays it out for review.

IMO, this is a greater threat to libraries than funding, the Internet or eBooks. Do you have ideas about what might open things up?