On June 27th, the annual ALA Intellectual Freedom program in Washington, D.C. will feature a discussion of how the Cheshire (Conn.)Public Library handled the controversy over a book about the murder of a prominent family in that community. On a rainy night in July 2007, two men allegedly invaded the home of Dr. William Petit and his wife, Jennifer, killing Mrs. Petit and the couple's two daughters ages 11 and 17. Dr. Petit was left severely beaten but alive in a burning house. In a book based on the case titled In the Middle of the Night author Brian McDonald interviews one of the killers charged in the murders in apparent violation of a court imposed gag order. The book was released for publication last September in advance of a trial scheduled for this January.
Cheshire Library Director Ramona Harten is faced with the decision of whether to stock the book. Harten decides to order two copies amid a firestorm of controversy. Several members of the Library Advisory Board criticize the decision and accuse her of being insensitive toward the Petit family. Harten defends her decision on the grounds of free speech rights and the book's relevance to the community. Twenty-one libraries in surrounding towns also ordered the book.
Friends and neighbors of Dr. Petit want the book banned- or at least kept out of the Cheshire Public Library until the trial is over. They charge that the author and alleged killer are profiting off the pain and suffering of the Petit family and Cheshire community. Some residents consider it reprehensible that the library would carry the book under the guise of intellectual freedom. They argue that publicizing the book sensationalizes murder and encourages copy cat crimes. Over 1,200 residents signed petitions protesting the library's decision to carry the book. A special library board meeting is convened to hear resident's concerns. Despite the outcry, the Chelshire Library Advisory Board votes 5 to 1 in favor of the director's decision.
The people of Cheshire are entitled to their views about how their tax dollars should be spent and are within their rights to complain to the library board. There are legitimate criticisms of the book such as that it was poorly written, self-serving, and a manipulative attempt by the alleged perpetrator to shift the blame and influence potential jurors at trial.
However, keeping the book out of the library is censorship and contradicts our professional commitment to intellectual freedom. Libraries are an educational pillar of our democracy and the communities we serve. We must rise above the understandable emotion of the moment not by censoring the book but by explaining our selection criteria and how it applies to particular material. The people of Connecticut need to decide for themselves what books they wish to read. As librarians, it is our job to provide access to relevant materials however unpleasant and controversial that process may become.
The book should be available to anyone who wants to read it. There are many books not stocked because of the librarian's decision rather than because of a lack of awareness, but that is not censorship. Harten states that the library has a longstanding policy of stocking material relevant to the town and In the Middle of the Night meets that standard.
I am sympathetic to the Petit family and the people of Cheshire who are justifiably angry about the killings. We should respect the pain and suffering of the Petit family. But that doesn't mean we give up on the basic values of intellectual freedom. A library has a responsibility to chronicle the history of their community- both positive and negative. The Jefferson County Library in Columbine, Colorado has a collection from the infamous 1997 high school shootings. Some of the materials include painful texts from families who lost loved ones in the tragedy.
Harten's professional duty required her to put personal feelings aside. As librarians, it is our job to provide information and let our patrons decide if they wish to read it. The public has a right to be informed. Libraries are places where people can exchange ideas and form their own opinions. As Harten explained, "I am proud that people are exercising their free speech rights. I do understand the emotions of everyone involved. I am a mother. I have a family." She could have taken the easy way out by ignoring the book but to her credit she made the difficult but necessary decision to make this book part of the collection.
Did she make the right decision? Would you have waited until after the trial to order the book? What is the appropriate way for libraries to commemorate tragedies in their communities?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This was a great find!
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see how the book impacts venue, jury selection etc. I agree that if the book falls within the scope of the collection development policy it should be included. I guess part of me questions the timing in relation to the trial especially if there was a gag-order. If there is no doubt the book should be included-is it really censorship if it's delayed? Which is more important, free speech or due process?
In that position, I would support the inclusion of the book, but would probably consult with the library's attorneys on the timing. I feel for the family though, it's a traumatic event they will never fully recover from. This one actually hits a little close to home. I had a relative abducted and murdered several years ago. After class ends we will be riding a leg in a memorial ride-it's something we do every year.
As far as ways for libraries to commemorate community tragedies; I think it depends on the nature of the tragedy, but regardless the families should approve and be involved and included in planning the event and the event should celebrate the victim(s) lives. National commemorations and memorials can also be events at the library that could honor community tragedies.
This reminds me of O.J. Simpson's book, "If I Did It" (http://www.amazon.com/If-I-Did-Confessions-Killer/dp/08253058880) and the controversy with libraries that followed. On the one hand it's horrifying that he would write such a book, but on the other hand in the end it was the Goldman family that wanted it publicized as O.J.'s confession. I agree with you, though, as wrong as it may feel libraries have a responsibility to make the information available, even if we feel the information is being used unethically.
ReplyDeleteI'd be most concerned about the gag order issue, and would question the truthfulness about the book. If it were me, I'd include the book, but hold off until after the trial for two reasons. First, it is a measure of respect for the families. Second, it's hard enough to preserve the validity of a trial. Why make it even harder by making the book more prevalent?
ReplyDelete