thedenverchannel.com Reports “The Cat Who Killed Lilian Jackson Braun: A Parody” and “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,” will remain on the shelves of libraries run by the Weld Library District.
But members of the board still are considering an objection to a book that has explicit depictions of sexual development during puberty.
Second Story Here.
should librarians warn patrons about inaccuracies?
I want to sidestep the issue of censorship based on sexual mores, to focus on “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture”. The book has been effectively debunked with the discovery that many of the author’s sources are either nonexistant or grossly misinterpreted. What should librarians, whether conservative or liberal, do with such factually misleading material?
Re:should librarians warn patrons about inaccuraci
Let people read it.
Re:should librarians warn patrons about inaccuraci
Even in a high school library?
Re:should librarians warn patrons about inaccuraci
Depends on their budget, and what they consider to be their mission. Do they have the budget to include things that are not primarily educational but which might fit into the curriculum in other ways? What does their collection policy say? Do they have a responsibility to provide only high-quality research for students to use, and if so, how to define and identify high-quality research? Might such a book have use as an illustration of what not to do, perhaps within an unformation literacy curriculum? Does it have any redeeming qualities, intentional or otherwise?
But my very general answer to your very general first question still stands.
Re:should librarians warn patrons about inaccuraci
Good question.
I think a library’s fiduciary responsibility to purchase material that has some literary, scholarly, fill in the blank, merit must be an integral part of any collection development policy.
To purchase “junk” material for the sake of “censorship” is, IMHO a disservice to patrons and a waste of their tuition/taxes.
Simply put, junk is junk. If “Arming America:…” has been “debunked”, then don’t buy it. (that’s why we read reviews, right?)
CD funds are too precious. At least for my library.
FWIW I say this speaking as a conservative.
Re:should librarians warn patrons about inaccuraci
I don’t think any library is acquiring the book any more, since it’s no longer being published. At the time it came out a few years ago, which is when libraries would have been buying it, Arming America wasn’t considered junk. (Except by the NRA.) So the real question is, what should libraries now do with the book they bought in 2000?
My library doesn’t own it, but other libraries in our automation cooperative do. I’m a bit distressed that the automation vendor includes the LJ recommendation from 2000, with no mention of the fraud uncovered later.
Public libraries will always have a certain amount of “junk” books on their shelves (alien abductions, Ann Coulter, etc.), because of patron demand.
Re:should librarians warn patrons about inaccuraci
No argument here.
I have purchased my fair of junk to be sure.
You are also correct on the LJ review (which I just read again). And to think I was a reviewer for LJ. Makes one wonder how closely they read the 5 page application form.
Anyway, your point is well taken. I would suggest one small revision in your post. Perhaps substituting Michael Moore for Ann Coulter?? ; )
Worth reading if interested:
Disarming History. By: Malcolm, Joyce Lee. Reason, Mar2003, p22,
Re:should librarians warn patrons about inaccuraci
Actually B&T shows the second edition of this title being released this month (November) by SoftSkull Press. ($17.95)
Is also shows 330 copies on order.
Caveat emptor.
Baker & Taylor:
“Draws on archival material to challenge popular misconceptions about the American belief system about
arms rights, tracing “gun fever” to its European origins while documenting the rarity of firearms in early
America as well as the technological advances and events that made guns an integral part of American life.
Original.”
Re:should librarians warn patrons about inaccuraci
I stand corrected regarding the availability of Arming America.
With the controversy over the book itself a legitimate subject for study, I’d say the 2nd edition does have a place in some libraries (academic, at least), regardless of whether it’s junk. Reviewers and vendors ought to mention the questions about the data and scholarship of the original edition; the author apparently addresses at least some of these issues in the SoftSkull edition. http://www.softskull.com/