Dear Editor,
Who decides what books belong in a public library? Library science’s answer is library staff trained in collection development. Collection development is:
“The process of planning and building a useful and balanced collection of library materials over a period of years, based on an ongoing assessment of the information needs of the library’s clientele, analysis of usage statistics, and demographic projections, normally constrained by budgetary limitations” [“Dictionary of Library and Information Science” by Joan Reitz].
Collection development asks what the needs of the community are and what resources serve those needs, which can be challenging. There was a question posed during the March 2, Mohave County Board of Supervisors meeting of whether anti-Semitic books should be in a library. Yes, if the books fit the library’s collection development plan. I grew up in a historically Jewish community and there was a copy of “Mein Kampf” by Adolf Hitler in the public library’s nonfiction section. That community prioritized direct knowledge of their past.
At the same meeting, District 5 Supervisor Ron Gould presented a list of books he felt were “inappropriate” to add to the library collection, but no precise description of what constitutes “inappropriate.” Multiple speakers and supervisors also commented that these books were “sexually explicit.” One common element these books share is the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ characters and/or themes. LGBTQIA+ characters or relationships do not make a book sexually explicit, just like heterosexual characters or relationships do not make a book sexually explicit.
Public libraries are a community resource, and good collection development recognizes and addresses the needs of all demographics of a community. LGBTQIA+ Mohave County residents are part of the community. There are taxpayers who are LGBTQIA+ and taxpayers who are supporters, friends, children, parents, and family members of LGBTQIA+ people. They all fund the libraries with their property tax dollars and deserve library materials relevant to their experiences and needs.
Erin Roper
I would question why one member of the County Board of Supervisors would take it upon himself to think he can decide for the rest of the county what book should or should not be in our library. That would lead me to question what other areas outside of managing the county’s resources he thinks he would want to intrude on.
Everyone has an opinion and one vote. The 3 supervisors that voted to deny the county library users access to these books have in effect said that their opinion and their vote overrules the rest of the voter’s opinions and votes.
There is an existing procedure to address anyone’s objections to library material. These 3 supervisors didn’t have to follow the rules like the rest of us, they bypassed existing rules by voting to remove the books that were already on the shelves in our library.
I need to point out that the 3 supervisors that voted to circumvent our library rules all claimed that their Personal religious beliefs or Personal moral beliefs guided them in voting to remove those books. The 2 Supervisors that voted to not interfere with library rules and remove those books sited their constitutional principles in doing so.
I appreciate and applaud the 2 Supervisors who voted to protect our constitutional rights.
Oh, please. Supervisor Ron Gould has consistently expressed his commitment to the wellbeing of Mohave County’s children and to maintaining community standards in our public institutions. Not only did Supervisor Gould speak out in defense of silenced children but Supervisors Borrelli and Lettman stood firm on thier stance for the children of Mohave County. The Board of Supervisors, by law, have a duty to review and oversee what materials are accepted into county libraries to ensure they reflect the values and expectations of local residents. Recent criticisms of Mr. Gould appear to misunderstand or misrepresent these responsibilities. His goal is not to censor ideas, but to ensure that library content, including donated materials, is age-appropriate and educational. Protecting children while preserving intellectual freedom is a careful balance and one that Mr. Gould, Mr. Borrelli and Mr. Lettman take seriously and approaches with integrity and transparency. Too bad Travis Lingenfelter and Don Martin did not feel the same.
Gould expressed a commitment to his religious ideals and forcing others to them. That is not a commitment to the safety and wellbeing of children.
Books presenting positive roll models and stories for children are not sexualizing them. It is instead Mr Gould who is sexualizing, even fetishizing, anyone who does not fit their narrow definition of what it is to be human. That some humans are LGBTQAI is part of life regardless of Mr Gould and his supporters “feel” or “believe.”
Mr Gould’s and other’s assumptions that human biology is a clearly defined binary is not correct. Additionally, the implications that reading a book will cause anyone to change their core identity is ridiculous.
The CDC and APP show suicide as the second leading cause of death for children ages 10 to 14. That number quadruples for LGBTQAI children. Having access to books that provide positive role models can be critical to a child’s emotional well being. Isolating children based on religious fundamentalism is blatantly harmful. Children who are not LGBTQAI having access to these books promotes empathy and inclusion. And, these are good things.
A frequent statement is that parents should purchase those books is ignorantly ignoring the purpose of a library, and is rife with economic privilege. Mr Gould is not a library expert capable of curating a collection. No amount of “belief” will make that true. He, and those who share his beliefs should stick to what’s on their own bookshelves and leave the library to the experts.