"It could also be argued that any labeling is a form
of censorship."
True. However, the ALA Statement on Labeling
specifies labeling as "describing or designating
materials by affixing a prejudicial label and/or
segregating them by a prejudicial system." The key
term, in my opinion, is "prejudicial." Certainly it
could be argued that using genre stickers or reading
level indicators is prejudicial. But it could be
argued just as strongly that those stickers are
facilitative tools intended to assist patrons in
efficiently locating material they seek.
The final sentence of the Statement on Labeling is:
"This statement, however, does not exclude the
adoption of organizational schemes designed as
directional aids or to facilitate access to
materials." It is common practice in both public and
school libraries to label easy readers and picture
books, and to shelve them in separate sections. Is
this censorship or "organizational schemes designed as
directional aids or to facilitate access to
materials"? If it is censorship, then what would
qualify as organization? Is marking books with their
Dewey decimal classification censorship? It would
seem possible to argue this position, because the
Dewey number is based on content.
The Statement on Labeling includes the caution that:
"Libraries do not advocate the ideas found in their
collections. The presence of books and other
resources in a library does not indicate endorsement
of their contents by the library." Based on this, a
test for censorship could be whether books are labeled
according to content. Reading level is related to the
difficulty of the vocabulary and the overall length of
the book, not the content. So how would it be that
indicating reading level is censorship? Some schools
using the AR program may label books with the AR point
value.
Many books are published with reading level
information on the product. I am thinking
specifically of easy readers here. Recorded materials
frequently feature ratings or warnings. The ALA
Statement on Labeling, in acknowledging this practice,
includes this paragraph "Publishers, industry groups,
and distributors sometimes add ratings to material or
include them as part of their packaging. Librarians
should not endorse such practices. However, removing
or obliterating such ratings—if placed there by or
with permission of the copyright holder—could
constitute expurgation, which is also unacceptable."
Since I am interested in censorship, I appreciate the
posts on this topic. Censorship can be very subtle,
or quite obvious. I suppose that is one good argument
for having fully qualified librarians staffing all
libraries.
Disclaimer: I do not intent to incite any discontent
with my comments, and hope that is not the case. I
feel that by engaging in such conversations we all
become better librarians, which is my goal --
professional and personal, short and long term!
=====
Jodi Freeze
MLS Student
East Carolina University,
Greenville, NC
freezejodi@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-
All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law.
To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu
In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL
3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation.
LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/
Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/
EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/el-announce/
LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-
LM_NET
Mailing List Home