Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Kelly, Virginia on May 12, 2009:

Nothing prevented the librarian from being concerned, but the ALA codes are clear - her duty was to notify the child's parents, as it is solely their responsibility for what he reads, not the school's. As a parent, I would have been annoyed, but appreciated the concern for public (and my child's) safety - had I been the one notified. As a parent, I am disgusted, but not surprised at the school's and the local police department's and the librarian's hubris.

Posted by Don Linthicum, MD USA on May 12, 2009:

I am a paraprofessional in a public library, and there's no question about it: what this library Director did was unprofessional, unethical, and just plain wrong.

Library Directors are always under difficult pressure from the politicians who control the purse strings, and from the public (bless their hearts) who whine to the politicians, and I know that sometimes Directors have to choose their battles -- but that doesn't apply in this case. No one was forcing the Director to violate her patron's privacy; if she had kept quiet the way professional ethics demand, no politican or voter would ever have known. It was her own choice.

She ought to seek a different profession. Perhaps politician. Unless she has learned her lesson, there is no place in libraries for her.

Posted by Mike, Cotati, CA on May 12, 2009:

I've taken to calling "zero tolerance" by what seems to be its more appropriate name: "100% intolerance". Might get me looked at funny at a Parent-Teacher meeting, but so what? :)

---

At least you're going to the meetings. It amazes me how many parents don't. -rc

Posted by Kelly, Pennsylvania on May 12, 2009:

I suspect that many Americans will not be too upset at the overreaching librarian, because we have already given up so many of our rights without a fuss. Our online activity in particular is always being spied on, by business and government alike, and to today's teens that must seem normal. So isn't the horse already out of the barn on this? This is not the same country we grew up in. Just look at the current expansion of the federal government! We value security more than freedom, and would rather be the land of leisure than the land of opportunity.

Posted by Alisa, Martinsburg, WV on May 12, 2009:

It makes me so angry the way children are treated these days, though unfortunately the reaction of this librarian did not particularly surprise me because 1) the child was a teenager and 2) a boy. People are so judgmental and fearful of kids, especially teenagers, but how many actually deserve this fear? As the mother of three teenagers and having worked with children of all ages for many years, it seems the rare teenager that would commit a violent crime. I believe children tend to live up to the expectations we have for them, so what does this paranoid intolerance say about our future, especially for those children who have fallen victim to unreasonable zero tolerance policies?

Posted by Mark, Queensland Australia on May 12, 2009:

"Because it was about guns" is definitely no excuse. This same false logic has funded the "war on terror" where every perversion of normal citizens' liberties is justified by "but it's about terrorists". Newsflash: including 9/11, only 5,000 people in the western world have been killed by terrorists. The number of deaths by school shootings must be a tiny fraction of that. Way more children die on the roads outside their schools -- so where is the war on speeding motorists? Fear based illogic that prays on popular paranoia needs to be slapped down as hard as possible. Our society and our freedoms pay too high a price where these stupid memes become popularised and enshrined in legislation.

Posted by Sharon in Connecticut on May 12, 2009:

Kelly, Virginia, said: "... the ALA codes are clear - her duty was to notify the child's parents, as it is solely their responsibility for what he reads, not the school's."

Uh, no. It was not her duty to notify the parents. That would be putting herself between the parents and the child. Her duty was to help the child locate useful information. Instead of focusing on the child's information needs with a good, professional reference interview, she panicked.

Posted by Bo, Indianapolis IN on May 12, 2009:

I agree with all of you who are appalled at this librarian's actions. Randy is right in pointing out that we don't know why the kid was researching those materials. Why didn't the librarian merely ask the boy, in a neutral way, what he was researching? Perhaps by asking him if he needed help locating materials; or, asking if he had what he needed? If she had those "Columbine" suspicions, a few leading questions would have allayed her fears. In other words, give him the benefit of the doubt (presume his innocence) like the Constitution says!

Posted by Byron, Connecticut on May 12, 2009:

I agree, you were too easy on her. For a Librarian to call the authorities because of what a patron is reading says that the conditioning we are receiving is working. Our government and in turn their lapdog media have the public so fearful that they are turning in their fellow citizens for crimes not committed.

And that is just a symptom of a deeper problem. The Patriot Act which was voted into law just a month and a half after 9-11 is allowing our government to engage in actions which go against our constitution on every level. This makes the actions of that Librarian even more distressing.

We are allowing fear to control us and entice us to give up our freedoms.

Posted by Alethea - Michigan on May 12, 2009:

As an ex-librarian, I was of course appalled by the librarian's action. I also wonder where she went to library school - and how she managed to graduate! What she did is against everything we are taught.