Lex Luthor: A Librarian's Superhero

I just re-watched Superman: The Movie (1978) and something new stood out for me. I do not claim to be an expert when it comes to comic books or comic book characters, in fact all I really know about Superman comes from the 1978 film. What stood out is Lex Luther's ability to find information to support his evil plans. He is a librarian's superhero. His office is full of books and he knows how to use them. I guess you could say his super power is collocation.

Book Banning in Seattle

I have been studying intellectual freedom for the last couple of months at the University of Hawaii. One of our textbooks for the class is 120 Banned Books. You can probably guess from the title what this book is about. Just last week we were discussing cultural reasons why books were banned or challenged. The very next morning I read in the Seattle Times that the book Brave New World was being challenged at Nathan Hale High School in the Seattle School District.

I believe in and advocate for an open and free marketplace of ideas. Does this mean that the topic of book banning should be off the table and that every books is free to sit on the shelf of any library? I am still struggling with that questions and its implications for children's libraries. However, for High School and public libraries, there is not a book I would challenge nor a resource I would ban.

I must say though, that this particular book challenge is an interesting position. First, I should note that the person who is challenging the book is the mother of an upset student who read the book last year. I am curious why is has taken the challenge so long to get to the school board. My hope is that it is because the mother took the time to read the book. A reoccurring theme of book challenges are conservative parents who have never taken the time to read the books which ultimately results in challenges in order to push a particular moral slant.

Another interesting point, this particular challenge seems to be less about the content of the book and more about the ability of High School students to grasp the larger meaning of the story. This could be stating another way, the teacher's inability to fully engage the students. I do not know the teacher nor do I intend to pass blame into the hands of an educator. This is a major issue within the Seattle school board concerning the appropriate response concerning situations like this. Instead of improving a teachers ability to teach a subject the subject is taken away all together. This is problematic. The solution to the challenge should be paid professional development on how to engage students when teaching controversial books. I realize my argument here is way too simplistic as it does not take into account the complexity of student/teacher relationships and the individual responsibility of the students. The point here is that the removal of the book from the classroom does not need to be the solution and it doesn't seem to address the problem.

Finally, I found the motivation for the banning to be particularly intriguing. Typically when Brave New World is being challenged it is because of sexual explicitness. However, in this particular case it was because the parent believes that Native Americans are inappropriately represented in the novel. Compare this reason to a challenge of the exact same book earlier this month in Maryland because of sexual vulgarity. While I do not approve either reason for banning the book, I do sympathize with the mother from Seattle. Especially because Native Americans are probably the most under-represented group in American.

At the point when I write this the only decision that has been made is to remove the book from the reading list at Nathan Hale High School. As far as I know this means the book will still be available in the library. The challenger has stated that she would like to have the book removed from all reading lists in the entire district. To those who champion reading and intellectual freedom, I do not expect this book will get removed from the libraries. There will probably not be a formal banning of the book. I encourage everyone to write an e-mail to the School Board if you are not happy with their decisions or to go to a library and talk to a librarian about what you can do to support the freedom to read. This will be an important issue for us all to keep an eye on as the outcome has the potential to set precedent for future challenges.

Links:

The NPR article on the issue

The American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom

ALA Bill of Rights

The Closing of Government

During the last 50 years there have been huge strides made in the process of expanding the transparency between the United States government and the people that government rules over. By creating a transparent government the intellectual freedom of the individual is championed and the ability for the government to act outside of the public eye is reduced. It should be viewed as extremely problematic when this transparency is weakened or eliminated, as was the case during the George W. Bush administration. When this happens individual freedoms and liberties that our founding fathers fought so hard for get striped away.

In 1966 the United States congress passed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and on September 6^th of that year President Lyndon B. Johnson singed it into law. The passing of this law allowed for previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the US government to become available to the public. For the individual American this created a much-needed shift from a position of need-to-know to one of right-to-know. For many this act was the broadening of the inherent rights for the access of information. It also increased the transparency of the US government.

President Richard Nixon, in 1970, proposed the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which began operation on December 2, 1970. The EPA began as an agency of the federal government for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by congress. EPA today employs over 17,000 employees and has a budget of 10.5 billion dollars. They also, traditionally, have worked hard to make all of their research available and accessible to the public.

In 1986, congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know- Act (EPCRA). This act establishes requirements for all levels of government and industry regarding emergency planning and right-to-know reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The community right-to-know provisions were intended to increase the public’s knowledge and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities. It was also intended to help disclose how these facilities used these hazardous and toxic chemicals and how they were disposed of and if any of them were released into the environment either through spills, sewage, exhaust or other forms of pollution. It was believed that communities and governments could use this information to improve safety and public health as well as improve the environment.

EPCRA was passed in response to concerns regarding the safety and environmental hazards created by the storage and handling of toxic chemicals. These concerns became increasingly prominent after the Bhopal gas tragedy in Bhopal, India that caused the death of 3,787 people, a number which was later raised to 15,000 deaths and, depending on which study you read, anywhere from 3,000 to 500,000 injuries. To reduce any likelihood of such a disaster in the United States, congress imposed requirements on industrial facilities.

The Bhopal gas tragedy is the world’s worst industrial catastrophe, happening on December 2^nd 1984. At the industrial plant in Bhopal, India a tank that held 42 tons of toxic pesticide overheated and spewed exhaust and pesticide over the city. After this tragic event it became evident to United States lawmakers that the protections against disasters like this is a better-informed citizenry. Right-to-Know legislation understood at its most foundational level that open information concerning what was happening in local industry would help in protecting the people of the US from anything like what happened in Bhopal.

The tragic events of September 11^th, 2001 knocked this entire right-to-know system off of its central axis. In the eyes of the United States executive leadership, the concept of fear, the constructed threat of terror and the ideas of preemptive war and national security trumped any concept of intellectual freedom. During the days following the events of Sept. 11^th many Americans believed that ideas of national security and freedom to information go hand in hand, yet the Bush administration saw the opportunity to take the US a different direction.

This shift of ideals from freedom to fear can be seen in Executive Order 13233, which restricts public access to the past presidential papers even for the existing president, and can also be seen in the USA PATRIOT Act. It must be noted here that on January 21, 2009, on his very first day in office, President Barak Obama revoked EO 13233 and help usher the United States our of the information dark ages and persistent fear mongering of the Bush administration.

Two example of this push for an information dark age by the Bush administration is found in the burden reduction of the nation’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program in 2005 and the closing of the EPA libraries in 2006. These are a form of censorship imposed by the executive branch of the US government and problematic for the American people as the transparency established by FOIA and EPCRA were cut off.

The US TRI Program requires industries to report every year the amount of toxic pollution they release into the environment. Prior to 2005, industries were required to annually report the release of any sort of persistent, bioaccumlative and toxic chemicals that would be harmful to the environment and citizens in their area. These industries needed to report these figures to the EPA through a five-page form. In 2005, Kim Krisberg of The Nation’s Health reported that requirements would change to every other year and would also let facilities use a more simplified form (one page as opposed to five) if they did not manage more then 5,000 pounds of pollutants. These diminished forms would reduce the amount of information these industries would need to report to the public concerning the materials that were being handled in their buildings. According to the EPA this was suppose to be an incentive to help reduce the amount of toxic chemicals released into the environment. It is unquestionably clear that this decrease of accountability is an advantage for industry but at the same time ultimately harmful for the people of the United States.

Senator Jim Jeffords (I-Vt) stated that the EPA’s proposal would “deny communities up-to-date information about local toxic releases, reduce incentives to minimize the generation of toxic waste and undermine the ability of public health agencies and research to identify important trends (Krisberg).” John Balbus, director of the health program at Environmental Defense and a member of Public Health Association’s Environmental Section stated that the proposal would “essentially take away our ability to track in anything close to real time…It’s clear that this move is designed to benefit industry more then it is to improve the public’s access to information (Krisberg).”

While Republicans would argue that this ruling was designed to help small businesses, Democrats would argue that this endangered public health. As a footnote to this argument, I do tend to question whenever I hear Republicans refer to small businesses, and for no other reason then because that term tends to be loosely defined (if defined at all) and highly constructed to strike an emotional chord in the middle class. I mention this only because, as reported by Kara Sissell by Chemical Week in 2006, the Small Business Administration (SBA) had their hands all over this rule change. OMB Watch, a non-profit who keeps their eye on the transparency of the government, almost made it sound like the EPA was working for the SBA and not for the American people as a majority of SBA’s suggestions concerning this rule change was put into place.

The facilities that held the information from both the TRI reports as well as the research done by EPA scientists were the EPA libraries. In February of 2006 the Bush administration proposed a 2-million dollar budget cut from the EPA’s library system for the 2007 fiscal year. In 2007 the EPA’s total budget was 8-billion dollars. The amount of money allocated to the EPA libraries from that budget was 2.5 million dollars. This proposed budget cut would decrease the EPA libraries budget from 2.5-million dollars to .5 million per year, an 80% decrease. Compared to the overall budget for the EPA this cut accounts for significantly less then .1% of the overall EPA budget. To put this another way, for every $100 the EPA received from the national budget the EPA would send a penny down to their libraries and now the Bush administration wanted to take most of that penny away. This budget cut would ensure the closing of most of the EPA library network.

The EPA library network consists of 10 regional libraries as well as the main library in Washington DC. Even before the budget cuts were approved in congress the EPA began to close down several of its libraries to both the public and the EPA staff. They closed regional libraries in Chicago, Dallas and Kansas City and reduced hours and public access to libraries in Boston, New York, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington DC. On November 30^th EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson received a letter from four House Representatives, John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), Bart Gordon (D-Tenn), James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) and Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). The letter stated, “Congress…has approved neither the President’s 2007 budget request nor the library closure. We request that you maintain the status quo of the libraries and their materials while this issue is under investigation and reviewed by congress (Eberhart, 17).”

However, it was not just the closing of libraries that was restricting information to the public. On December 1^st, 2006 a statement was released by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) noting that “thousands of on-line documents were de-linked from the agency’s Office of Prevention, Pollution, and Toxic Substances (Eberhart).” Peer also noted that the EPA was “making certain some libraries stay closed by hastily selling their office equipment, and claims that $40,000 worth of furniture and furnishings from the shuttered Chicago office was recently sold for $350 (Eberhart).” On that same day, the San Jose Mercury News reported that the EPA’s chemical library was asked to throw a valuable journal collection into the dumpster. The EPA Office of Environental Information claimed that all EPA-produced documents would be accessible on-line within two years yet for all practical purposes the libraries were closed and public access was cut off.

As the EPA was closing their libraries they were also boxing up their books and resources and sending them to three different repositories where they became un-cataloged and inaccessible. Other materials were recycled or thrown away. One report stated that 380,000 documents on microfiche, 5,550 EPA hard copy documents and more then 16,000 books and technical reports by government agencies were boxed up and made inaccessible. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the EPA’s library system holds 500,000 books, 25,000 maps, thousands of studies and decades of research and that much of it is irreplaceable.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the EPA was only planning to make about ten percent of its library holdings available online and was being held up by copyright issues in digitizing its holdings, limited to unique reports produced by EPA (Oder).

As early as July 5^th 2006, 10,000 EPA scientists, engineers and other technical specialists asked Congress to stop the Bush administration’s budget cuts. The letter that was signed by these 10,000 employees stated that about 50,000 original research documents would become completely unavailable because there is no budget to digitize them. They also noted that there were no plans to maintain interlibrary loan documents (Library Journal, 07/05/2006).

Representative Bart Gordon nicely sums up much of the what was happening in the EPA libraries when he said, “The Agency’s modernization effort is characterized by poor planning, failure to communicate with its employees, the public or Congress and failure to protect unique government assets (Oder).”

Many libraries, at that time, did not support these actions caused by the Bush administration. The American Library Association (ALA) President then was Leslie Burger. In the December 8^th 2006 edition of the New York Times she was quoted as saying, “In the age of terrorism, when the safety of our food and water supply, the uninterrupted flow of energy, and, indeed, so much of our environment has become a matter of national security, it seems particularly dangerous to take steps that would hinder our emergency preparedness (Eberhart).”

Burger also testified before Congress pertaining to the ALA’s position concerning the closing of the EPA libraries. In this hearing she stated, “There continues to be a lot that we don’t know: exactly what materials are bing shipped around the country, whether there are duplicate materials in other EPA libraries, whether these items have been or will be digitized, and whether a record is being kept of what is being dispersed and what is being discarded (American Libraries, March 2007).”

On September 30^th 2008 the closed branches of the EPA library system reopened thus ending a 30-month campaign by the Bush administration to restrict the availability of the EPA materials. What was left in the wake of all this were the scattered and incomplete library collections and little resources to undergo an in-depth digitization process. Reopened facilities were to be staffed by a minimum of 24 hours over four days per week.

PEER Assistant Director Carol Goldberg stated, “While we are happy that EPA is re-opening its libraries, we are disturbed that the minds which plotted their closure remain in charge (PEER, September 29, 2008).”

According to PEER, the new policies in the reopened libraries was still less access then before they were closed. Most of the reopened libraries were housed in less space then before and the library in Chicago reopened without permanent furniture or shelving. Resources that were sent back to the libraries were broken collections and out of order and many of the libraries were only able to provide core reference materials (PEER, September 29, 2008).

On September 30^th of 2010 the EPA released their 2011-2015 strategic plan. In it they state that the EPA holds three core values: Science, Transparency and the Rule of Law. This is the first strategic plan issued under the Obama administration. OMB Watch stated, “The strategy…seems to respond to repeated complaints by public interest groups that science had taken a backseat to politics at EPA under the Bush administration. The “Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism” strategy ties directly into the Obama administration’s open government efforts to improve participation and collaboration at agencies (OMB Watch).”

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated that the EPA “will take broad steps to expand the conversation on environmentalism to communities across America, building capacity, increasing transparency and listening to the public (OMB Watch).”

OMB Watch stated, “It is through this strategy that the agency’s strategic plan seems to offer the most opportunity for progress on open government issues. To achieve greater community engagement, the agency plans to incorporate a list of transparency principles into its regular functions (OMB Watch).”

The Right-to-Know laws that I mentioned at the beginning of this article were always intended to be general requirements established to keep US citizens safe from the industries in their community. What the Bush administration did was to create rules based on particularities, such as fear and terrorism, to help them gain more and more control over pubic information and then distribute it to only those whom they wanted to have it. This allowed for a closed and secretive government.

Perhaps no US President has usurped more power into the executive branch of the US government then George W. Bush. In the process he completely closed down his administration from the public’s eye and commandeered freedoms away from the American people. In general, those who promote an idea of a transparent government and open access to information tend to be Democrats. If it were not for the actions of many Democratic Representatives in Congress during the later years of the Bush Administration it is possible that American would still be sitting in the information dark ages of the mid-2000s. It is my hope that the events I just wrote about will be a reminder of where our country was less then 5 years ago and how far we have come during the Obama administration.

[I have linked to all of my resources that are openly available on the internet. Below are sources you many need to look up using the databases at your local library. The database I suggest is Academic Search Premier. If your library does not have it suggest that they get it then email me and I will send you all the PDF files.]

Eberhart, George and Daniel Kraus. “Opposition to EPA Cutbacks Increases.” American Libraries 38, no. 1 (2007): 17.

Krisberg, Kim. "EPA proposal could weaken reporting rules on toxic releases." Nation's Health 35, no. 9 (November 2005): 8.

Sissell, Kara. "Right-to-Know Group Questions Industry's Influence on EPA's TRI." Chemical Week 168, no. 2 (January 18, 2006): 29.

K., D. "Senate Committee Questions EPA Actions." American Libraries 38, no. 3 (March 2007): 15.

Celebrate Banned Books Week

In 1859 John Stewart Mill, in his treatise On Liberty, wrote, “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is…robbing the human race.” He goes on to say, “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

Referring to the banning of the novel The Grapes of Wrath Gretchen Knief, a librarian, wrote, “Ideas don’t die because a book is forbidden reading. If Steinbeck has written truth, that truth will survive. If he is merely being sensational and lascivious, if all the ‘little words’ are really no more than fly specks on a large painting, then the book will soon go the way of all other modern novels and be forgotten.” (Quoted from 120 Banned Books)

Today, when you walk into the public library you can pull a book off the shelf from almost any subject matter. The idea of banning books seems foreign or outdated. This is largely due to the efforts of librarians across America. Two groups have fought hard to uphold the liberties stated in the first amendment: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and librarians (American Library Association, ALA). Both of these groups have stood for the preservation of intellectual freedom even when it was highly unpopular and discouraged by the majority.

The concept of banning books might seem foreign today but the truth is that even today individuals and groups attempt to silence and censor certain information and ideas. This link will take you to a page listing all the books that have been challenged during the last year, showing that the fight against censorship is not over. To celebrate the victorious efforts in the fight against censorship and to encourage the continual effort to supply an open and free marketplace, the ALA designates the last week of September as Banned Books Week.

This year Banned Books Week is September 25th – October 2nd. The theme is “Think For Yourself and Let Others Do The Same.” Many resources can be found on the ALAs website at www.ala.org/ on their advocacy page and also at www.bannedbooksweek.org

I encourage everyone to stop by your local library next week and check out the displays and literature provided by your local librarian. Look on your library’s website for events and reading happening during the week. The Seattle Public Library is doing a presentation on the novel To Kill a Mockingbird including a free screening of the 1962 film starring Gregory Peck.

Your freedom to read is not a liberty that has evolved slowly over time but one that has been hard fought by many librarians, both past and present. Take the opportunity to revel in this freedom. Read a book that has largely been banned and partake in the activities happening at every local library across America. What book will you check out this week?

Lets Make A Difference!

I would like to make a direct plea to all of my friends who are in some sort of church leadership position. Now more then ever our churches need to publically promote tolerance. Christianity needs to work harder at promoting interreligious dialogue. I am not ignorant to the fact that many of your already do this. I would like to urge those who do to make this stance more public. Take ads out in the newspapers, put PSAs on the radio, television and at the movies. Hang signs in your neighborhoods. Intentionally make an effort to increase contact with people of all religions, and not for the sake of outreach, evangelism, debate or education but instead for the sake of reaching a hand out and saying “I respect you.”

As I said, I know that many of you are already doing this and understand the need much more then I do. Yesterday Terry Jones in Florida announced his “International Burn-a-Quran Day” scheduled for Sept. 11^th. I am not asking for him to be silenced as he is protected by the first amendment. Instead I think it is disappointing that people like Terry Jones fills the pages of our newspapers when he is such a small voice within Christianity. I am asking for voices like this to be diminished by positivism coming out of our churches.

Next year Sept. 11^th lands on a Sunday, that is just over a year from today. Now is the time to begin a campaign to promote the voice of peace. The Christian voice is a voice of power and privilege in America. Next year lets give that privilege up 100%. Lets find a way to show the rest of America and the world that not all Christians are intolerant bigots like Terry Jones. Next year at the ten-year “anniversary” of 9/11 lets find a way to give up our traditional Christian worship services for a day of service and community. Lets begin brainstorming ways to show that we love and care for our Muslim neighbors.

I am looking to open conversation with my Christian, and non-Christian, friends concerning this. Jesus did not call us to show hate instead he called us to love. Let’s begin a movement so positive that it makes voices like Terry Jones so insignificant that no one even hears it. What are some ways we can make a significant impact next September though some sort of interreligious meeting?

Is Christianity To Blame For Soccer’s Lack of Popularity in America?

Every four years we are given the privilege to watch the world’s top athletes compete during the World Cup. A tournament where every game is important and a single goal can be the difference between moving on and going home. I personally love the opportunity to wake up early, brew a cup of coffee and watch soccer at 7am. One highlight was the Paraguay v. Japan match that went well into the 120th minute without either team scoring a goal. The game play shown by both teams kept me in the match on the edge of my seat not wanting to miss a single second.

However, I could not help but notice the continuous complaints about the lack of a “winner” in many of the matches. So far in this world cup 16 matches have ended in ties, 2 of them going on to penalty kicks. Especially early on during group play Facebook would light up as status updates would complain about the fact that soccer has ties.

Now, I would be the first to confess about how little I really know about this sport (or any sport for that matter). However, this does not limit my ability to enjoy a match or be a fan. There is so much soccer has to offer like the size of the field, the continuous clock, the international feel and the absolute relentlessness of the fans. When I mentally compare this game to other sports it surprises me that soccer has not caught on more here in the U.S. while other sports like baseball, basketball and football remain popular.

I have several theories.

First: Because the clock never stops there is very little time for advertising space. Without commercials it would be difficult for major networks to air the games. Space is built into the major American sports for the viewer to be over saturated with ads for everything from cars to attorneys. If soccer were to become a major sport in America advertising would need to completely change, as every commercial would become avoidable.

However, there is an even deeper issue that has kept soccer from becoming popular in America. Our three major sports (baseball, football and basketball) are all reinterpretations of foreign competitions (cricket, rugby and the Mesoamerican ballgame respectively). At some point Americas must have felt like they had the ability to take these games and reinterpret them to make them our own. Why couldn’t we have just played the world’s games? Why did we have to invent our own?

The answer to this question lies in the framework surrounding the founding of this nation. The early European inhabitants of North America (Pilgrims, Puritans … ) had one fundamental belief that has changed the world forever. That being that God was on their side; whatever they did they believed that they were doing with God’s blessings. What this has created for us today is a nationalistic mentality that supersedes the rest of humanity. It has become too easy to believe that Christianity is right (or normal) and the rest of the world’s religions/cultures are suspect. Christianity has also given humanity the ability to dominate anything and everything we want. This mentality has had a devastating effect on our environment (see Lynn White’s article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”).

While Baseball, Football and Basketball are adapted foreign sports Soccer remains unchanged, despite many American gripes. It is difficult for Americans to participate as equals (or worse as under matched) in the world’s game. American’s feel like they need to compete in the things they create and neglect those that lie outside that realm.

Now I know this is an extreme stance. I hear a lot of talk about how America is becoming a secular nation and maybe the increased interest in soccer is helping us become more secular. Yet this country remains and will always remain a Christian nation. Most of our ideologies are rooted in Christian theology. We continue to hold these beliefs and our notion of conquest, adventure and nationalism are held together, and will forever be held together, with a fundamental stance on Christian ideologies.

So is Christianity to blame for soccer’s lack of popularity in America? I believe it is. Not at the individual level. No verse in the Bible prohibits the enjoyment of soccer nor do individual churches preach against soccer (if they do you should stop attending them). However, at the ideological level of Historical American Christianity the game of soccer has very little chance of becoming successful in America, or at least as successful as our own reinvented sports.