GUILDERLAND — The public has spoken.

About 100 people attended a library board meeting last Thursday where the trustees ultimately defeated a proposal, 7 to 1, to label sexually-explicit books for young-adult readers.

Thirty-five people voiced their opposition to labeling. They said censorship is wrong and that it is a parent’s responsibility to monitor his or her teenager’s reading.

Trustee John Daly had proposed the labeling policy system in part because he believed descriptions of sexual acts in books might cause teens to have sex.
"Kids 12 to 16 that are having sex right now wouldn’t be caught dead in a library," said Lily Rowen, a freshman at Guilderland High School, whose mother works in the Guilderland library’s children’s department. "Just because you’re reading about sex doesn’t mean you’re going to have it. We’re just curious...I just read a book about climbing Mount Everest and I’m not going to do that," she said.
"Labeling books undermines freedom and is a solution to a non-existent problem," said José Cruz, a parent of two teenagers.
Most of the library board agreed. Although five citizens supported Daly’s proposal to label books, Daly was the only trustee to vote for the policy amendment.

The Enterprise wrote about Daly’s proposal last week. He said then that it was his obligation, as an elected trustee of the Guilderland Public Library, to warn parents about the books their teenagers are reading.
He proposed labeling young-adult books — which he feels have sexually-explicit content — with orange, "PG Rec" (Parental Guidance Recommended) stickers. Books determined to be free of sexually-explicit material would have been marked with green stickers.

A few days before the proposal was to be voted on, Daly changed it so librarians would only have had to label 5 percent of newly-acquired books per year. This was to lessen the workload for library staff, he said.

Daly got the idea for the labeling policy in February, after he read an article on young-adult literature in The New York Times by Dinitia Smith.

What Daly got from the article is that authors who write for the young-adult genre, ages 12 to 16, are writing material more sexually-advanced than the people reading it, he said.
He then decided to see what kinds of books the Guilderland library has on its shelves. Daly read eight or nine young-adult books and found two "with sexually-explicit material," he said.

The material was in a few pages of the books — Forever by Judy Blume and The Hanged Man by Francesca Lia Block.

Public reaction

Barbara Nichols Randall, the library’s director, told The Enterprise last week that she was against Daly’s proposal.
"As librarians, it’s part of our ethical code or professional code of conduct to provide materials of all kinds for the community," she said. "We try to purchase things that are on all sides of an issue."

At a special meeting last month, the committee reviewing the library’s policies voted to reject Daly’s amendment. At last Thursday’s packed three-hour meeting, trustee Ellen Doolin reiterated Nichols Randall’s sentiments as to why the committee rejected the proposal.

Then, trustees heard from the public. In all, 27 people spoke against the amendment and eight more wrote letters or e-mails to the board. Three spoke for the proposal and two wrote e-mails in favor of it.
Jerry Houser said he found it odd that Daly was offended by "love-making," but descriptions of "senseless violence and murder passed his test."
Walt Jones said he respects the library’s staff. "I wouldn’t want to put them in the position of being the thought police for the community," he said.

Walter Silver, a retired high school history teacher, said the idea of censorship is appalling.

In other countries, he said, censorship began with small, insignificant things and slowly grew to take away serious rights.

Classic authors like Jack London and Geoffrey Chaucer might be labeled, he said. Even the Bible, he said, might be deemed unsuitable.

Not everyone was against Daly’s proposal, however. Two parents wrote e-mails saying they were for it because they don’t have time to read every book their teenagers bring home.
"Parents trust in cultural institutions," said Lamont Hungershafer, an older man. "I don’t think a parent should have to look at a library like an adult book store."

Lenora Daly, the trustee’s wife, told the board that, as a parent, she supports his proposal. Her twin sons are 25 now, she said, and she would have been upset knowing they were reading these kinds of books when they were teenagers.
"No one wants censorship," she said. "...There’s a lot of material here that makes sex unhappy and evil and ugly when it should be beautiful. This is a problem."

Trustee views

After the public comment period, the trustees’ names were drawn out of a bowl. The board members then got 10 minutes each to speak, in the order in which their names were drawn.

Each trustee, except Daly, spoke against the proposal.

Doolin and Barbara Haught said book reviews and content information is available in the library’s on-line catalogue.

Doolin also said that some might find books with violence or with racial slurs more offensive than sexually-explicit material.

Haught and Merry Sparano said that, although they might not want their children reading these books, it is not their role as trustees to label books.

Brian Hartson thanked Daly for bringing his concern to the board. He said it was unfair of some of the speakers to suggest Daly was advocating censorship. Labeling is not censorship, he said.

But, Hartson said, he finds Daly’s proposal counterproductive. Teenagers would be attracted to the labeled books, he said.
"The real 800-pound gorilla in this room is that parents aren’t parenting," Hartson said.
"I think censorship of any degree is simply wrong," said Bruce Sherwin. Of his children, he said, "I don’t want them to be afraid of reading things or trying things."

James Denn also commended Daly for bringing up the issue. He told a story about his 11-year-old daughter’s recently choosing a book from the library called The V Club. Denn helped her pick the book, he said, and it was described as a book about four friends, each vowing to keep her virginity.

But, Denn said, while his daughter was reading the book, she came to him, confused about some material. The book was really about one friend who lost her virginity and another who planned on losing it soon, Denn said.
"The book caused a family discussion," Denn said. "At the time, I wasn’t happy the library was causing so much discussion and emotion in my family. But, it was good. It was helpful."

He recommended that parents be involved with their children’s reading, but not totally reliant on reviews or short descriptions.

Board president Robert Ganz said he’s been an avid reader since he was a child and he had no restrictions. When he was in the fourth grade, Ganz said, he found a book with racy passages and he showed the book to all his friends. The teacher caught him and called his father, he said.

Although his father had a long discussion about the book with him later, Ganz said that, to the teacher, his father defended his right to read whatever book he wanted.

Young people’s rights shouldn’t begin when they are 18, Ganz said. Some adults don’t give teenagers enough credit for their maturity, he said.
"To shelter denies their right to mature, to confront the material," he said.

Peter Koonz said Daly’s proposal was well-intended, but not practical.
"I believe exposure only breeds education," said Matthew Goland-Van Ryn, a non-voting student member of the board.
"I’m hopeful that at least raising this discussion will be helpful to parents," Daly said.