In what has become a common occurrence, libraries across Ohio -and the nation as a whole -seem unavoidably to have become lightning rods for controversy in the past few years. Only a few months ago, lawmaker Gerald Allen, R-Alabama, attempted to remove books by or about homosexuals from public school libraries through legislation, a measure that thankfully fell by the wayside when not enough lawmakers were present during the session to hold a vote on the issue.
Although it is appalling that such an attempt to censor the content of public libraries occurred, most Ohioans familiar with the controversy probably were able to dismiss it, seeing Ohio did not have such a problem. Well, the unfortunate truth is that Ohio has joined the ranks of Alabama, and the biases of its citizenry are rearing their ugly heads again.
Controversy within the halls of one Ohio library, the Upper Arlington Library, has erupted and surely will re-open the debate about whether literature or periodicals produced for or by homosexuals should be permitted in public libraries. Citizens have protested the free distribution of two gay publications in the library -Outlook Weekly and Gay People's Chronicle -and have asked the library's Board of Trustees to remove the publications. Although no final decision has been reached, the correct stance for the library to take is to stand by its current operating policies.
The library, as a public entity, has a right and an obligation to provide citizens with as diverse reading material as is fiscally possible. The removal of publications based on their content or target audience should occur only if they are deemed obscene or pornographic. Neither Outlook Weekly nor Gay People's Chronicle meets these classifications.
Aside from the usual First Amendment rights arguments -in this case, the freedom of the press clause permit both publications to be viewed or distributed -the real issue at hand is the censorship of literature and news publications. Although banning two publications might not seem potentially disastrous, such an action could pave the way for the banning of novels, poetry, etc. Outlawing the publications in questions could set a precedent that could be used to justify the removal of classic literature authored by the likes of Gore Vidal and Tennessee Williams.
Simply put, it is not for average citizens to decide the contents of the public library system because of personal biases. Instead, the decision is left to the library trustees who must not yield to the pressure of a small, but vocal, minority; the trustees should provide reading materials for all citizens.
According to the annual Hennen's American Public Library Rankings, 25 Ohio libraries are among the top 100 public libraries in the nation. The findings of the report were tallied after roughly 9,000 libraries were surveyed across the entire nation. Although such a ranking is not based solely on the diversity of publications a library stocks on its shelves, it nevertheless contributes to the excellent condition of Ohio libraries. The removal of these publications would be irresponsible and once again would prove that state agencies often violate the rights of the individuals they are supposed to assist. In this case, the best solution is also the simplest: if you don't like a publication's content or viewpoints, then do not read it.
17 Archives
The Post Staff
