That crude series has an extremely large hold list at my library system too. Buying a few copies (or just one) won’t kill you.

The library system I work at doesn’t have this selective policy. As Jean said, a concise policy should be practiced. Our policy states we try to have books that appeals to the public and tries to represent all spectrum of the public. We do have a policy against explicit pornography, which is further describes as being visually graphic, or compromising of explicit details with more than half of the said mediums. We also carry music, movies, and various other media materials. As such, erotica and romance novels stays in our systems, as do shows such as The Tudors, Game of Thrones, and Sex and the City which include many sexual scenes. The way our policy is worded does so that real porn can and will be omitted from our collection. We would not carry videos one would find in an adult (+18) video store because they fall outside of our policy.

I’m not advocating libraries carry explicit porn, or allow porngraphy. I’m advocating for libraries to have a more defined policy. I would like to see how this Maryland library’s actual policy is. If it’s thinly worded and at the discretion of that librarian (whoever heads collections), then it’s it is subjective.

As it stands now, it is censorship. And you’re using the excuse of porn to make your stand. I don’t consider Fifty porn. You do. Well, see what we have here. It’s all subjective opinions.

Dan as a gay man, those repairative therapy are all crock. If you were to really sit down and talk with all those folks claiming to be “healed,” they aren’t. Homosexuality is not a disease, but low and behold we have ex-gay books in our library system and when I entered this system, I did nothing to process the removal of those misguided books. I would assume if you can you would ban all books about homosexuality.

As I stated, a broad selective policy is just an excuse to discriminate. The policy must be concise and clear.

Yep, it’s badly written. Yep, most of the 65-85 year old women who’ve requested this title are going to have attacks of the vapors when they read it. Yep, most of them are going to come ask the library staff to define the terms they don’t understand (no, really, ma’am, you don’t want to know what that term means. No, really.) But at the end of the day, it’s their library and their tax dollars.

http://dearauthor.com/features/industry-news/master-of-the-universe-versus-fifty-shades-by-e-l-james-comparison/

There are plenty of reasons one can dislike the 50 Shades series without carelessly misrepresenting its origins.

Acquiring materials based on contemporary significance or popular interest are certainly valid selection criteria. For a library, circulation has to be an element in a quality matrix; spending money on materials no one uses makes no sense. What needs to happen next is to unpack the criteria of “contemporary significance” and “popular interest”, add to them and explore some of the dilemmas bound up in them. This is the depth I’m not seeing from libraries.

Also – you and Greg had the guts to note the self-preservation aspect of acquisition decisions and it’s great to see library folk be candid about it. Narrative coming from the library community evokes high-end ideals when tacitly most (and perhaps unwittingly) have adopted a low-end strategy for bringing people thru the doors. It doesn’t have to be this way. There are loads of ways to bolster usage of materials, staff and facilities drawn from proven techniques from other industries. I’ve articulated many in various library forums. It doesn’t mean you turn away existing patrons, it means you attenuate your practices to continue meeting their needs and bring in more patrons.
This would require change and work though.

In the following post, the AL said of library staff “we’re in it for the relaxation and the goodwill”. This observation has characterized most of the library folk I’ve met at all corners of the library ecosystem. It’s not laziness, per se, though it does accrue to institutionalized stagnation. This – not technology or public indifference – will be the undoing of libraries.

Barbara Jones, Director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom has stepped forward in a leading outlet, NBC Nightly News. She, as the ALA’s representative, heralds a new phase of ALA activity, namely, supporting the admission of porn into public libraries. The “freedom to read” apparently magically trumps all prior bans on pornography in public libraries. No more need for library selection policies (or material reconsideration policies for that matter), local library enabling laws that exclude porn, SCOTUS decisions that find that libraries traditionally ban porn, community standards, and common sense. The ALA, having lost on all these fronts to promote porn, is now going right to the people to convince them to jettison all that and demand libraries carry porn.

Recall how the AL previously wrote about libraries using selection policies to censor out any material whatsoever about those evil ex-gays. Another example: http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/american-library-association-silent-as-libraries-ban-books-about-ex-gays/ Well now we are all supposed to demand porn despite the law and common sense.

Hear directly from the ALA appearance on NBC Nightly News. Here’s the entire segment on the issue; note well how Barbara Jones sets the example, and it’s not a good example as she supports the porn, not the librarians enforcing legitimate, local library selection policy:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/47543142

Let me add that porn is not a joke, not funny, not lmao. People are seriously harmed or killed or commit suicide as a result of creating porn. Search Twitter for library porn and see all the harm being done nationwide, every day. Apparently the ALA could care less, especially now that it openly supports porn in public libraries and does not support librarians applying selection policies.

Here is some truth about porn: http://thepinkcross.org/

If your readers are requesting materials that you refuse to supply, simply ask yourself what are the reasons for your refusal. Depending on your answer, you’ll know what type of selection you’re practicing.

And you might realize why you’re practicing it too. Self- or job-preservation are actually pretty good reasons, IMHO.

Reasons not to buy them? Maybe if you’re absolutely certain the books wouldn’t circulate at all.

I’m not hearing anyone say that these materials wouldn’t circulate. I am hearing people argue we shouldn’t be the ones who circulate them. Even though some members of our communities seem to want read them. For whatever reason.

This title/episode demonstrates that books still have the power to generate interest and conversation. The public is engaged – why aren’t representatives from the library community?

It’s possible a library rep has stepped forward in a leading outlet like NPR, Washington Post, Reuters and I’ve missed it. If anyone knows of such a case, please share.

I am a librarian, but our policies don’t include a “no porn” provision. They’re broadly written to be inclusive and affirming of all kinds of materials. Selection is where “arbitrary standards” can be safely applied. And sometimes it’s just easier to avoid a possibly challenge– especially when you can correctly make the claim that budgets are tight.

When the news about the “Fifty shades” phenomenon first broke in the press, I noticed that there were lots of holds building up on the one copy held by our consortium and notified our selectors email account. Someone else sent out an email linking to an article noting that e-readers might disguise the fact that some people (women) were reading what was being referred to as “mommy porn.” And the phenomenon didn’t seem to be a cause for alarm among the women in the office who were sharing it.

I suggested that their reaction might be different if the audience for the stuff was predominantly male. Which seemed to put a damper on the discussion. So it goes.