Posted by
Andrews on Friday, May 09, 2008 12:15:38 PM
I was reading Bozell's
recent article on the ALA and their implicit censorship, and I have to admit that both sides have an argument. Bozell is right that, while decrying censorship, the ALA itself is showing a willingness to censor books that are intolerant of homosexuality. At the same time the ALA has a point, as the libraries serve a population including homosexuals, so they cannot exclude that view either.
As I said before, when both sides are right, but their solutions are mutually contradictory,
that is an indication that we may be asking the wrong question.
The problem is with public libraries in general. A public library, unless it is going to buy an equal number of every book ever published, will, of necessity, include and exclude certain books. And the choice of which books to stock, and in which quantities, will always open the libraries to charges of bias, censorship, and other similar accusations. No matter how broad the coalition of groups which come together to select the library contents, some other group will feel their views were not represented. It is inevitable.
Which points out the central problem, government involvement in inappropriate areas.
Libraries are, foremost, repositories of ideas. And, if there is one thing our Constitution makes clear, the government should stay out of the marketplace of ideas. Any government meddling inevitably causes some groups to be favored and other excluded. Even if entered into with the best intentions, even if they attempt to be even handed and fair, the government will always end up favoring some ideas and excluding others. As the government is supposed to serve and represent all people, it cannot choose to exclude ideas, or favor ideas, so it is failing in its mission when it meddles in the realm of ideas. The solution is not, as both Bozell and the ALA suggest, from opposite viewpoints, to adjust that meddling to fit our own views, but to end that meddling entirely, by taking the state out of the library business.
I know a lot of readers will disagree with me. They think of libraries as noble institutions bringing books to kids and adults who can't afford them. But my argument is, yes they are, but they are just as noble when funded by private foundations, rather than tax dollars. And, when funded with tax dollars, they are harmful in a way private libraries would not be.
And before someone tells me private libraries are not possible, I would ask them to visit Batlimore and go to the Enoch Pratt Free Library. Yes, the Pratt is a bit of strange hybrid, as it is owned by the city, and in 1964 it got funding under yet another LBJ great society program, but it was for much of its life privately funded by a grant. So the idea that private libraries are impossible is just not true.
Yes, we are used to public libraries, and we think of them as noble, but many people are used to social security and think of that as noble too. For that matter, in the USSR many thought of communism as noble and necessary. Just because we are used to doing things through the state does not mean we must do them so, or that it is even the best choice.
As long as we have public libraries, we will have controversies over the state's meddling in ideas.