It took me a bit of digging, but I *did* find the FAQ he referred to on ALA’s site (hey, I’m a librarian, digging is what I do). It’s on the Coping with Challenges page, and in case the ALA rearranges their site again and the link doesn’t work, here’s the answer, complete (and of course, it’s not quite as simple as “yes” or “no”):

=====
Q. Can’t parents tell the librarian what material they don’t think children should have?

A. Decisions about what materials are suitable for particular children should be made by the people who know them best—their parents or guardians.

Children mature at different rates. They have different backgrounds and interests. And they have different reading levels and abilities. For instance, a video that one 10-year-old likes may not interest another. Or parents may feel a particular library book is inappropriate for their daughter, while the same book may be a favorite of her classmate’s family. These factors make it impossible for librarians to set any criteria for restricting use based on age alone. To do so would keep others who want and need materials from having access to them.

Like adults, children and teenagers have the right to seek and receive the information that they choose. It is the right and responsibility of parents to guide their own family’s library use while allowing other parents to do the same.

Librarians are not authorized to act as parents. But they are happy to provide suggestions and guidance to parents and youngsters at any time.

I’m fully aware that I waxed sarcastic more than a few times here, and starting out that way on the WSJ’s comments section would have the unfortunate effect of making me look like Ranty McRanterson and cause those who agree with Muncy to see my tone rather than my actual argument.

Plus, now that I look, there’s some excellent commentary already there by readers that make a lot of the same points, and many of them are librarians. Unfortunately, their very valid, logical comments are being met with some pretty hard-headed responses.

I don’t mind being snarky here on my own blog, but that’s because I know that all, what, ten of you? reading this grok my style. Arguing on the internets with people I don’t know requires a more formal tone or it becomes a lot of shouting and no listening.

In the unlikely event that someone happens along here and want to offer a dissenting opinion and have an honest-to-god discussion, it’s also much easier to keep it civil in this space than it is on the WSJ site. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that Mr. Muncy started off in that editorial wanting an honest discussion, not with all the facts he fudged or just plain left out altogether, so I’m unconvinced that the commentary on that article can start from the same place.

That, and I’d have to lose the “To the Batcave!” line, and that makes me a sad panda.

I am mulling over rephrasing it and submitting it as a letter to the editor rather than just slapping a cleaned up version of it in the comments section. I figure it’d have about the same chance of being seen that way (which is still slim-to-none, but still.)