Salman Rushdie on Censorship and Critical Thinking

I had the opportunity to hear Salman Rushdie speak twice on Monday at Central Michigan University. I even got to meet and speak with him briefly. It was amazing how what he talked about overlapped with many of the issues that librarians deal with on a regular basis.

Rushdie has had his books protested against and censored. He was even sentenced to death by the Ayatollah Khomeini (who issued a fatwa against him) in 1989 for his book The Satanic Verses. Some perceived his book as an attack on Islam.

As can be imagined, Rushdie is an outspoken critic of censorship. He noted that "being sentenced to death by a fanatical leader who sent people out to kill him" was "bad for his self-esteem." However, he also said he would write this book again and would not back down in the face of censors.

He also talked a great deal about using critical thinking skills when faced with information found online. When a student asked him about reports online that the United States (and not Al-Qaeda) was responsible for the 9/11 attacks he retorted, "This is just horse shit. Use your critical thinking skills, does that make sense? I saw the planes hit the buildings. Al-Qaeda has accepted responsibility for the attack. Did the United States attack Pearl Harbor to declare war on Japan? There are conspiracy theories about that too."

He also spoke against the US government and the responses made (including the Patriot Act) to 9/11.

His talks were very relevant for librarians. If you have a chance, I would encourage you to listen to Salman Rushdie speak.

Create Your Own Search Engine

Google has launched a new service where websites can host custom created search engines based on Google. The Google Custom Search Engine (http://www.google.com/coop/cse/) is described as, "Harness the power of Google search to create a free Custom Search Engine that reflects your knowledge and interests. Specify the websites that you want searched - and integrate the search box and results into your own website."

That is right. You pick the web sites you want included. This service allows you to set-up a search that spam sites have no chance of intruding upon. Further, you can exclude sites which actually disagree with you! Your search engine of choice can now be just like your new service of choice. In the USA, liberals tend to watch CNN News and conservatives watch FOX News. Hey, now your search engine can be just the same! It is so annoying when opposing views get in the way of being informed...

One example of this is Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org). The description of the site participation in the project notes, "RealClimate.org provides expert opinions on the science of climate change. Since this subject has become rather politicized, the quality of information available on the web varies. Using Google Custom Search Engine, they have created a searchable subset of the web that they believe provides the most reliable information. " By "most reliable information" the site owners mean those sites which agree with them. Since any scientist or intelligent person like Michael Crichton must be "politicized" for disagreeing with mainstream science it is best just to omit them from search results all together! I am sure the scientists of the early 17th century would have excluded any Galileo created sites from their search results too.

Just watch as junk science sites, historical revisionists, alternative medicine sites, etc. set up their own custom search engines. I can just see a site titled Holocaust Search Engine which only indexes sites which postulate that the Holocaust never happened. Or perhaps a Texas History Search which only includes sites which argue that Texas is illegally occupied by the USA. (These sites exist, I kid you not.) People like search results which agree with them. This is going to be popular with fringe groups as well as more mainstream society.

Not that I am entirely against this idea. It has real potential for areas which are not controversial. I may go out and create an Information Literacy Search Engine which only indexes good info lit sites. Or maybe an American Presidents Search Engine which indexes tons of good presidential history sites. Custom search engines can be good for K-12 schools as well for setting up safe sites to search for students. Spam sites are going to have trouble if this becomes a widely adopted technology.

It will be interesting to see how popular these custom Google search engines are and how different people are using them. Is search about to be divided up by special interests? Will people actually choose to use search engines that only provide results they agree with? Will censorship take on an acceptable face with this technology? Teaching students about using the Web and using critical thinking skills is getting harder and harder...

Censoring Google in China

Censoring Google in China. What a huge difference the Chinese government censorship of Google is having on search results. Via the Coming Anarchy Blog, I learned about how dramatic it can be.

Click here for a Google Image search of Tiananmen on the US Google and here for the same search on the Chinese Google.

Where are the tanks in the Chinese version? They do not exist! Very interesting.

When we talk about censorship in the United States, we are never talking about it at this level. I think it is safe to assume that the difference in results is also just as obvious in the regular Chinese Google Web search. This, coupled with Yahoo selling out a Chinese dissident and the madness over the Danish Islam cartoons, does not bode well. Expect more censorship by foreign regimes and groups in the future. I just hope we as librarians are just as willing to confront censorship issues caused by groups other than the US government or fundamentalist Christians. This overseas censorship is even scarier...

The Right To Read: Censorship in the School Library

The Right To Read: Censorship in the School Library. This is the text of an old (from 1990) but still timely ERIC Digest.

Almost all librarians agree that censorship is a bad thing. Censorship can occur when library materials are challenged by the community. It can also happen when librarians make acquisition decisions.

It is important to remember that this censorship is not just a right-wing fundamentalist endeavor. Many groups (from all over the political spectrum) attempt censorship. The site noted, "Those who lead library censorship campaigns come from both right- and left-wing organizations. Fundamentalists may dislike the open discussion of such issues as abortion in news magazines, feminists may challenge outdated female stereotypes found in certain books, and African-American groups may object to the portrayal of members of their race in such works as Huckleberry Finn or the Black Sambo stories."

I think we hear more about conservative censorship than liberal censorship due to the composition of the library profession. Most librarians consider themselves to be progressives. When they are challenged by a right-wing group, these librarians immediately publicize the incident. When they are challenged by a left-wing group, they keep it quiet and are more likely to find an accommodation without actually engaging in censorship.

This subtle bias is probably evident in purchasing decisions too. How many children's librarians are actively seeking out children's books from religious publishers that those from the left would find objectionable? How many of these same librarians are buying every children's book that comes out portraying homosexuality and families? Hence, the very nature of what is bought is likely to dictate what books get challenged by which groups.

This would make a fascinating study. I am kicking around dissertation topics right now (the time is growing close!) and censorship by librarians via purchasing decisions might make for a good topic. It would be easy to get into OCLC and actually compare the ownership of select titles and see if there is a visible ideological difference in selection rates. It may give Banned Books Week a new twist.

Goodnight Reality

Goodnight Reality. Both of my sons enjoyed the book Goodnight Moon when they were real little. It was in fact one of the first books I read to each of them.

I think I can recite it from memory. It is a good read if you are one.

Harper Collins recently released a new version of the book. All looks good but wait...

Someone has messed around with the picture of illustrator Clement Hurd! For some unknown (and unannounced) reason, the picture was sanatized to remove the cigarette from his hand. Just like that, 50 years later, Clement Hurd has given up smoking!

The blogged site of the day (Goodnight Reality) protests this crazy revisionist version of Mr. Hurd and calls for the placement of the original picture in Goodnight Moon. I fully support this message.

From the site:

This website is temporary, and has been designed solely for the sake of protesting the recent decision by Harper Collins Publishers to censor Goodnight Moon , one of America's national
literary treasures, and far and away the best-selling book in the history of children's literature.

Below are two photographs of Clement Hurd, the illustrator of Goodnight Moon . The image on the left is the original photograph that has adorned the back of the trade hardcover edition of Goodnight Moon for over 50 years. The image on the right is the new, altered version of the photograph, in which the cigarette that once resided in Clement Hurd's hand has been digitally removed by the publisher.

In a single stroke, Harper Collins has changed our collective history, and created an alternate reality in which Clement Hurd does not smoke. It calls to mind a censorship tactic most famously associated with Joseph Stalin, who falsified the archival record of the Soviet Union by literally removing images of his political enemies from photographs in an effort to recreate history in his own image.

To Censor or Not to Censor at the School Library

To Censor or Not to Censor at the School Library. This article is by Qianli Hu. It appeared in Chinese Librarianship, Issue No. 17 (June 1, 2004).

From the site:

A recent article in New York Teacher by Clarisse Butler “Defending the Right to Read: Librarians, [and] Teachers Navigate the Chilly Waters of Censorship”[1] reported Barbara Searle’s successful story of defending Rudolfo Anaya's book Bless Me, Ultima by enlisting the support from the New York State United Teachers, the National Council of Teachers of English, and members of a Youth Against Racism Group, and by following the district protocol. Butler’s article also cited how Fran Aveta successfully kept the Junie B. Jones series in her elementary school library and revealed what the role the union could play in fighting against censorship.

However, every coin has two sides. Censorship should not be a taboo in librarianship. We should guard against the government’s efforts to encroach on citizens’ freedom to read. On the other hand, school students do need guidance as to what is appropriate to read and parents’ roles in teaching and book selection should not be ignored.