OLD LYME — On Wednesday, July 27, the Old Lyme Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library Board of Trustees issued a statement titled, Old Lyme Library’s July 11th Decision … Some Questions Answered.
The statement answers a series of questions about the recent book challenge process, which culminated in the decision to retain two specific books in the Teen/Tween section of the library. The library had received a request to relocate the books, which had been signed by 135 residents.
The decision by the board was unanimous, although one member resigned in advance of the meeting.
The statement also makes public OLPGN Library Director’s formal Reconsideration Analysis & Findings of the books in question.
The statement, which has been published on the library’s website, reads in full:
Old Lyme Library’s July 11th Decision… Some Questions Answered.
On June 17th, the Board of Trustees of Old Lyme’s Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library received a letter signed by 135 members of the Old Lyme/Lyme community, asking that two books be removed from the Teen & Tween section of the library.
As part of the review process, Library Board members were asked to read the books in their entirety. After having been confronted with selected images sent to them by the concerned citizens, many members were surprised to find the books focused primarily on developing healthy relationships based on communication and trust. Some still felt that the books were concerning and dealt with unduly mature topics. Others reacted by saying, “I wish I had this book growing up.”
With so many differing opinions of the books among board members, how did the Board reach a unanimous decision with its vote on July 11?
After allowing members to share their personal feelings about the books, the Board shifted its focus. With the understanding that individual values, beliefs, and experiences differ, Board members set aside their personal opinions and evaluated the books through the lens of the “Standards of Selection” established in the library’s Collection Development Policy and addressed in the Director’s “Reconsideration Analysis”, the full text of which can be found at oldlymelibrary.org. They grappled with the ideals codified in the American Library Association’s Freedom to Read Statement, and they voted unanimously to uphold the principles embodied in the library’s policy.
How in the world did the books get there in the first place?
Staff take into consideration a wide array of information when making decisions about what to add to the collection. They consult professional review publications (e.g. Library Journal, Booklist, The NYT Book Review), follow bestseller lists, pay attention to local interests and author interviews on major media outlets, and consider direct requests from patrons. Individual titles are measured against the “Standards of Selection” outlined in the library’s Collection Development Policy with an effort to develop collections that (1) position the Library as a source for lifelong learning; (2) provide opportunities for engagement, discovery, and creativity; (3) provide resources that anticipate and respond to patron needs and expectations; and (4) embrace diversity.
How are community values addressed in a library developing its collection?
While library staff endeavor to support community interests (Old Lyme’s Phoebe has, for instance, a much larger art collection than most libraries its size) staff do not attempt to reflect community values for three primary reasons: (1) no single understanding of community values exists, (2) in its effort to embrace diversity and offer resources for patrons to challenge their own thinking, consider other points of view, and broaden their minds, the library necessarily provides materials that may challenge even majority opinion, and (3) a principle role of public libraries, as articulated by the American Library Association, is precisely to support the marginalized, underrepresented, silenced, and disadvantaged. Embedded in the library’s practice is the understanding that by striving to serve and support all patrons we inevitably offend, alienate, or challenge others. Books are powerful tools that elicit strong emotions, and we believe patrons’ concerns deserve to be heard. It is for this reason that the library has a “Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials Form” and an established review process as part of our policy.
How does a library judge what is age appropriate?
The judgment of age-appropriateness is likewise a matter the library staff do not engage in. Age-appropriateness is highly subjective, both in the sense that youth of the same age vary widely in developmental progress and in the sense that what one individual or cultural group considers appropriate another deems inappropriate. This latter point is aptly illustrated by the current debate surrounding these two books. Well-informed people of good faith in our community hold widely varying views on the age appropriateness of the books. Should one group in the community, or for that matter one librarian, determine what is appropriate and made available for all others in the community? For these reasons, professional library practice, not just at the Phoebe but around the country, avoids making judgments of age appropriateness. Library staff place books in one of the three broad age-based collections (children, teen & tween, and adult) most closely matched with the publisher age recommendation as corroborated by professional reviews.
What can a concerned parent do about the Library’s Policy?
Please note that Library staff do not act in loco parentis. Per state statute (CGS 53-21a), young people should be of at least twelve years of age to visit the Library unaccompanied. Library staff necessarily assume unaccompanied youth have full access to the Library and all its collections —including the adult collections. Limiting access to content is the responsibility of the parent. If you feel you need to accompany your child to the library or any particular collection, we welcome and encourage your presence.
We are grateful to the citizens who expressed their concern and raised awareness of this very important and complicated topic. And we are grateful to the others who spoke out in support of retaining the books. Ultimately, however, the Board’s decision rested on the principles found in the American Library’s Association’s Freedom to Read statement, espousing freedom to read for all members of the community, irrespective of the relative size or outspokenness of the opposing groups.
Respectfully submitted,
The Board of Directors of Old Lyme’s Phoebe Griffin Noyes Library
Most parents address these issues at home so there is not a need for teens and tweens to read books on the subjects, right? Therefore I have no understanding why the books are even an issue.
If parents don’t want they kids to learn about relationships and sex, they shouldn’t have kids. Forming relationships and eventually having sex are a normal part of growing up.
Most teens and many preteens have seen porn on the internet. This makes the issue of where the books were placed by the library basically moot.
What was very disingenuous and perhaps libelist were those calling others who were concerned about the placement of the books ‘book banners’. No on ever said these books should be banned. Those who brought up ‘book banning’ in regard to this issue should be ashamed.
There was also gross negligence on the part of those who labeled those questioning the placement of the books ‘anti-LGBTQ’, including the clergy who felt a need to take this hot button approach.
I have read Mr. Curran’s letter and I still cannot grasp what his point is.I for one do not feel ashamed or a victim of any biologically-driven gross negligence.The goal of the conservative group questioning these books in the first place was to get rid of them.After achieving that,then it would be on to finding other books,or magazines,which addled them.This being America and I am guessing most of these people are Republicans,it always seems to start with books they find a bit too erotic.If any of them own a Bible I hope they have torn the Song of Solomon from it and tossed it away.Many lurid ideas can be be gleaned from a casual reading.What is inescapable is the assumption by them that everyone else’s children are too stupid to hear different ideas without their biased guidance.The books in question are about modern relationships as they exist and like it or not sex is a large part of them.If they help younger people to appreciate and protect their bodies more then terrific!They will find life much more worthwhile.Adults in town might profit as well because I get the impression from the statements made that no one in town has sex for reasons other than procreation.
The PGN library staff has made its decision and hopefully the parents group behind this sad spectacle will move on and find something else to occupy their time.Maybe pour themselves another drink or perhaps they might wander into the library and find a book or two to read.Works for me.
I do not believe that you will find any effort to ‘get rid of’ (ban) these books. Book-banning was a disingenuous, emotional, made-up charge. That is the point.
Your extrapolation that the effort to relocate these books to the adult section of the library will lead to mass banning is also unfounded conjecture.
It is unfortunate that those who became hyper-agitated by the request to move the books from the children/teen section had to resort to unfounded hyperbole.
Sadly, Mr. Curran, I don’t think that it is hyperbole. Initially there was an effort to entirely remove these books from the library. The “messing with libraries” movement is on-going throughout our country. This past week in Houston, Texas, instead of removing books, they decided to eliminate school librarians and “repurpose” school libraries into “discipline centers.” Houston is the fourth largest city in this country.
I was extremely “hyper-agitated” by this. I don’t think that we can speak up often enough about this trend to distort history and to block knowledge.
Charlotte Scot, with the most complete respect about the situation, the books that were found in the children’s section in the OL library told kids to visit porn sites and that promiscuity and multiple sex partners is OK. This is not about banning – it’s about reviewing material for content. Telling kids to find sex partners from online chat rooms is not OK in a reasonable world.
Obviously, I do not have your level of expertise with regard to reading these books. I don’t know why so many people became fixated on the content of these books. For instance, what made you read them? I personally have no interest in reading about sex. To each her own.
It is hard for me to envision our librarians pushing porn sites, promiscuity and multiple sex partners to innocent children. But it is equally hard to picture innocent children looking for books on these subjects. Perhaps, if no one addresses these subjects at home, kids might be curious. A library is a much safer place for them to seek answer to theirquestions than unsupervised online meandering.
I have seen no organized effort to entirely remove the books from the library. Do you have a reference for that?
The issue of where the books were placed in the library should never have happened, but it did. That is when things went off the tracks.
False statements and hyperbole resulted. False, emotional charges of ‘book banning’ were made, even though no one EVER said the books should be banned. And there arose a bizarre attempt to falsely turn this into an anti-LBGTQ effort. This included efforts by the clergy in this regard.
So the worst behavior during this entire episode was displayed by those who mischaracterized the simple, though misguided, request to relocate the books.