Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, July 21, 1994 TAG: 9408120013
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A12 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: K. MICHAEL CROUSHORN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Organizations frequently make decisions on what information (published or televised) should be made available to the public. The Roanoke Times & World-News exercises this decision process daily in evaluating what news, editorials and letters to the editor are to be published. A ``no'' decision means the information isn't available to the public. Is this decision process censorship?
The library process is similar. Literary experts write guidebooks for librarians to use in deciding what literature is appropriate. The library has a selection policy to determine which books should go in the library, including sections for children, adults and general periodicals. The selection process involves the experts' opinions, community requests and the library staff's opinions. Through all this, the library selects only a small percentage of all the available publications. The selection process excludes a majority of publications. Even donated publications may be refused. Once again, a ``no'' decision means the information isn't available to the public. Is the library's process censorship?
The problem arises when a citizen complains about the library's selection process. The official library policy, in lengthy terms, discusses the library's role to ensure freedom of expression, and to not succumb to those seeking to suppress publications.
The outcome of this policy is a dual standard. When the library makes decisions on publications to be made available to the public, this is called selection policy. When a citizen requests that the library change a selection decision, this is called censorship.
Therefore, the editorial missed the point. The true issue is inadequately defined policies on library operations. This issue is one for the Board of Supervisors to address. Library policies that are indifferent to the concerns of citizens aren't good. To hide this indifference behind the excuse of ``censorship'' is abusive. This indifference was exemplified by one library board member's sentiment that the library is quite independent, and that the Board of Supervisors has no authority to change library decisions.
As a fact, the restriction of publications occurs daily. The label of whether an action is one of selection or one of censorship is determined by perspective and motive. Perhaps the perspective of parents and taxpayers should be integrated into the library's selection process. Perhaps parents' motives are driven by concerns for their children rather than the library's standard assumption of censorship.
Let the Board of Supervisors do its job. Paranoia over censorship and narrow policy, which leads to the rejection of citizen inputs, should be replaced with policy and perspective that reflects community standards and expectations. The role of the library as a taxpayer-funded operation is to provide community service. The protection of the freedom of expression should not be the dominant aspect of library policy, but should be only one aspect.
K. Michael Croushorn of Blacksburg is an accountant for Inland Motor in Radford.
by CNB