Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[apl68]

Well, how about separate wings of the same library? Or maybe separate shelves? Or maybe (and I know it's crazy) separate books in the same library and don't take out the ones that offend you?

The separate shelves idea has been tried and found unacceptable at one library in our state.  The librarian addressed concerns of parents regarding LGBT items in the children's section by putting the library's LGBT material into its own dedicated special-interest section.  There's nothing inherently sinister or unprecedented about doing this.  Special interest sections of various kinds have been common practice for many years (Our own library has a "Black Authors" section that has been popular with black patrons.  White people use it too).  Bookstores have long had LGBT specialty sections, and been applauded for it.  I'm reasonably sure that some public libraries have already been doing the same thing.  In this case, librarians did not remove, mutilate, or make inaccessible a single item. 

Nonetheless, a local LGBT group has now sued the library claiming that grouping the items into a special-interest section "stigmatizes" them, and therefore constitutes a form a censorship.  Which seems like an extremely broad definition of what constitutes censorship.  The impression this move gives is that the plaintiffs are attempting to punish the library for so much as making a concession toward the other side of the debate.  It looks rather like the same sort of all-or-nothing mentality that demands that materials dealing with LGBT matters be removed from the library entirely.  It's not only what some on this thread seem to regard as "the usual suspects" who are giving librarians a hard time.  We're really being caught in the middle here.

To be clear, I was being facetious about separate rooms or shelves, trying to move towards the obvious answer of "all the books in one library and don't take out the ones that offend you"

The special section that I mentioned was not a separate room, BTW.  It was part of the library's general stacks area.  I don't know precisely where, since I don't work there. 

There have been suggestions that libraries be made to create a separate "adults-only" room that children could be prevented from entering.  The state's librarians are unanimous in opposing that sort of thing.  It's a bad idea for all sorts of reasons.  Something like that could very fairly be accused of stigmatizing or excessively limiting access to materials.  Mainly we're opposing it on the more pragmatic grounds that libraries simply don't have handy unused rooms available for something like that.  We'd have to sacrifice services like community rooms, local history rooms, or study and conference rooms to create an "adults-only"  room.  It's just not feasible.

[Wahoo Redux]

Let me try a couple of examples:

1. Many people are vegan, and believe that eating meat is morally wrong. I don't agree, but I respect their position and if I'm going to dinner with someone who is vegan, I will make sure to choose a place with vegan options. I may even have a vegan meal myself. But I don't feel the need to pretend to be vegan or to share that philosophy.

2. Many people smoke weed. I don't, and I think it's unhealthy in various ways, but I don't offer unsolicited criticism. (If they're smoking in a designated non-smoking area, or smoking while driving, I might, since they would be violating a clear rule or law that applies to everyone.) However, treating them with respect doesn't require me to pretend to agree with their views.

This is the problem with a culture where activists claim things like "You are either a hater or an ally." Being an "ally" implies being totally supportive of whatever someone else thinks, feels, says, or does. (Or more realistically, pretending to do so.)

As long as progressives insist on that level of total agreement as necessary for someone to be considered a decent human being, they're going to be at odds with all kinds of normal people who are moderate and willing to treat others with respect and dignity without having to pretend to drink every drop of Kool-Aid.

It's all the same, Marshman.  You are pretending this is something different than it it.

1.  Fine.  Just don't try to stop vegans being vegans.  And don't pretend that is not what's happening when we discuss LGBTQ rights.  Leave the vegan books on the shelves.

2.  Fine.  Don't smoke weed.  As long as it is legal where you live, mind your own beeswax.  And that is apples and oranges anyway.  Leave High Times in the magazine rack----if you don't want your kids reading it, then be a parent, not a censor.

Fine.  You don't want to be an "ally."  Then keep your bigotry to yourself.  Or at least don't try and legislate your bigotry.

"Progressives" (whoever you think that is) are going to be at odds with you.  As long as bigotry exists, the bigots are going to be at odds with the good, moral people.  It's really kind of up to the bigots in society.  And it is up to you to stop pretending that this is simply a disagreement.  Conservatives are trying to limit what people say; they want the books off the shelves.  It is explicitly NOT just "I don't want to have to pretend that I like you"----that is B.S.  It is actively trying to cancel people. 
And quit with the pretenses. 

[apl68]

...

Now I may be missing something, but it doesn't seem feasible or practical to arrange for libraries for every morality and more.

There are general bookstores and there are specialized bookstores. Do the same with libraries and there need be no problem.

dismalist, you keep saying all kinds of things are "no problem" when obviously they are huge problems. Given the issues with funding schools, public libraries, and school libraries, where do you think the money would come from to fund 4236 different libraries each catering to a specific subgroup. Plus, the increasing fractionation of our society is a huge problem that is only exacerbated by building bubbles where we never interact with people who disagree with us.

The purpose of education and the purpose of libraries is emphatically not to make everyone comfortable all the time. And in the "my library has books I disagree with" its not even making anyone uncomfortable unless they actively choose to read a book that makes them uncomfortable.

There are only problems when some insist on uniformity. Allowing variety is what solves these kinds of problems.

And money is not an issue here -- we already  have all kinds of bookstores. We just need all kinds of libraries.

bookstores = for profit (and we don't really have all kinds. some places can support a few small, specialty bookstores in addition to a big chan one. Many places can't even support a chain one).

libraries = nonpropfit = money needs to come from somewhere. So "we just need to" is a wish, not a realistic plan.

The money for libraries is already there. It comes from governments. There is no money problem, just a library problem, or better, a uniformity problem.

I know I have no plan with any chance of being adopted if one looks only at this thread. Outside this thread the expectation cannot be worse. The fighting will continue, and it will be solved politically state-by-state. I only wish it could be solved library by library! :-)

Tell a city that lacks funding to fix the roof on its library or branches that money's not a problem!  Systems with multiple branches do try to tailor services and collections on offer with local needs and requests.  But they can only do this up to a point.  Each branch still has to serve a general range of needs and interests.

[Wahoo Redux]

'A lot to handle': Ohio professor at center of TikTok controversy speaks out

The adjunct professor in the Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies department at the University of Cincinnati is the former instructor of Olivia Krolczyk. Krolczyk is the student who created a viral TikTok in which she denounced her professor (unnamed in the video) for giving her a failing grade on an assignment because Krolczyk used the term "biological women."

The video has been covered by the New York Post, News Nation and Fox News, the incident offering a platter of America's culture war issues: transgender rights, free speech and "leftist" professors.

[kaysixteen]

Exactly what public behavior in a public library is properly seen as beyond the pale, unacceptable, which the library can prevent?   I am talking about things which would be legal in private places, but are inappropriate for non-21+ public venues?

[nebo113]

via apl:   There have been suggestions that libraries be made to create a separate "adults-only" room that children could be prevented from entering. 

Back in the dark ages, when I first got a library card, there was not only a separate room for us non-adults, we also had a different colored card.  I don't remember the magical cross over age.

[apl68]

via apl:   There have been suggestions that libraries be made to create a separate "adults-only" room that children could be prevented from entering. 

Back in the dark ages, when I first got a library card, there was not only a separate room for us non-adults, we also had a different colored card.  I don't remember the magical cross over age.

Separate rooms for children and young adults are still pretty common, depending on the size of the library and the decisions made in the design process.  We have an open-plan building with separate community meeting, genealogy/local history, periodical, and book sale rooms, but all the book stacks are in one great big space.  The children's area is a wide-open space easily visible from the circulation desk.  The mostly open plan allows one or two staff members to keep an eye out on pretty much the whole building--but it also means that any story times or other activities in the children's area can be clearly head pretty much everywhere.  Doesn't do much for our peace and quiet sometimes.  Oh well, we don't set much stock with the old idea of a library as a place of tomb-like silence.

[Wahoo Redux]

Exactly what public behavior in a public library is properly seen as beyond the pale, unacceptable, which the library can prevent?   I am talking about things which would be legal in private places, but are inappropriate for non-21+ public venues?

Just come out and say whatever point you want to make, my friend.  The Socratic method is not always exact.

[dismalist]

'A lot to handle': Ohio professor at center of TikTok controversy speaks out

The adjunct professor in the Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies department at the University of Cincinnati is the former instructor of Olivia Krolczyk. Krolczyk is the student who created a viral TikTok in which she denounced her professor (unnamed in the video) for giving her a failing grade on an assignment because Krolczyk used the term "biological women."

The video has been covered by the New York Post, News Nation and Fox News, the incident offering a platter of America's culture war issues: transgender rights, free speech and "leftist" professors.

All, or virtually all, the problems posted on this thread have the same structure. Somebody does something Tribe A thinks is crazy, unjust, moronic, or otherwise. Somebody else does something tribe B is crazy, unjust, moronic, or otherewise. Neither tribe wishes to compromise -- indeed they can't because their views are so strongly held, for whatever reason. 'Twould be like compromising on slavery. Have some slavery? No.

The example from this thread I remember most vividly is of the poor adjunct who got fired for showing a picture of Mohamed. Well, that would not be a problem if each college specified its speech code ahead of time. We have enough colleges to allow true variety. It should be clear that I think that that college was run by a bunch of nut-jobs, but as I don't have to send my kids there, I can let them live, even thrive.

The Ohio case is no different.

There's a another case in the news -- censorship at the Mayo Clinic.

https://go.thefire.org/webmail/869921/1521560553/aab548e604fa8e9f8881a2acf925174bb2997131300a3f1b46bb5c8156600b57

Let the Mayo Clinic publish its speech code and those who disagree can work elsewhere.

So the solution is tolerance for differing attitudes and beliefs. This is easy for me so long as I don't have to share them. Would be easy for many others, too. Of course, it would mean that we can't impose our will on each other either.

And, emphatically, no tolerance of the intolerant.

[Wahoo Redux]

So the solution is tolerance for differing attitudes and beliefs. This is easy for me so long as I don't have to share them. Would be easy for many others, too. Of course, it would mean that we can't impose our will on each other either.

And, emphatically, no tolerance of the intolerant.

Hmmmm...I am pretty sure your commentary on this thread has been diametrically opposed to the tenets of culture expoused above.

And it is a pretence---AGAIN!---to claim that you are fine with the way other people live and believe as "long as you don't have to share" their beliefs and lifestyles.  You've tried to give yourself an escape hatch, here, another ploy for victimhood...

In our Western culture no one can force you to accept other people's beliefs.  You can be a Nazi in your private life or join the KKK or even be a member of NAMBLA.  What you will have to face, in these circumstance, is the opprobrium of the majority of society, but you can have those beliefs.  Freedom of speech and thought, not freedom from consequences.

It reminds me of something hilarious I read on Reddit a while back.  I tried to find it, but could not.

The gist of it was a quote that went something like----

"I am not a bigot, but I don't like black people."

This redditor was roundly scorched from all sides for the egregiously hypocrisy and frank cluelessness of their comment.

You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

Fine.  Don't like whatever you don't like.  But if you bring it out into the open be prepared for other people's opinions about what you don't like.  Our culture is strong in fighting down its prejudices, but the battle is not done.  I personally do not care what other people think either as long as they do not try to impose their limitations and prejudices on the public----let's just say, like, I dunno...what a public library can stock on its shelves.

[Wahoo Redux]

BTW, FIRE is right on about the Mayo Clinic.

Because when he spoke to the press about transgender athletes and COVID-19, he "failed to communicate in accordance with prescribed messaging," which the college claims reflects poorly on its "brand and reputation."

But Dr. Joyner never claimed to represent the college and its faculty, staff, and students. In fact, he's consistently made clear to journalists and his college that he speaks only for himself on matters related to his academic and professional expertise.

Dr. Joyner's refusal to toe the party line is protected by the free speech and academic freedom principles Mayo Clinic claims to value. Faculty like Dr. Joyner are not mouthpieces for their institutions, and they can't be punished for saying things in their personal capacities that administrators dislike.

I obviously feel very strongly about standing up to prejudice.

But I also feel strongly in free speech, and it is a very dangerous precedent to allow our employers to dictate what we think and say off the clock. 

Go FIRE!!!

[dismalist]

So the solution is tolerance for differing attitudes and beliefs. This is easy for me so long as I don't have to share them. Would be easy for many others, too. Of course, it would mean that we can't impose our will on each other either.

And, emphatically, no tolerance of the intolerant.

Hmmmm...I am pretty sure your commentary on this thread has been diametrically opposed to the tenets of culture expoused above.

And it is a pretence---AGAIN!---to claim that you are fine with the way other people live and believe as "long as you don't have to share" their beliefs and lifestyles.  You've tried to give yourself an escape hatch, here, another ploy for victimhood...

In our Western culture no one can force you to accept other people's beliefs.  You can be a Nazi in your private life or join the KKK or even be a member of NAMBLA.  What you will have to face, in these circumstance, is the opprobrium of the majority of society, but you can have those beliefs.  Freedom of speech and thought, not freedom from consequences.

It reminds me of something hilarious I read on Reddit a while back.  I tried to find it, but could not.

The gist of it was a quote that went something like----

"I am not a bigot, but I don't like black people."

This redditor was roundly scorched from all sides for the egregiously hypocrisy and frank cluelessness of their comment.

You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

Fine.  Don't like whatever you don't like.  But if you bring it out into the open be prepared for other people's opinions about what you don't like.  Our culture is strong in fighting down its prejudices, but the battle is not done.  I personally do not care what other people think either as long as they do not try to impose their limitations and prejudices on the public----let's just say, like, I dunno...what a public library can stock on its shelves.

That's a good example of what I objected to.

[Wahoo Redux]

Yup, I am intolerant of bigotry, no matter how rooted in righteousness.

I'm not alone.  And that is the important thing.

[kaysixteen]

Aha!  Nazis!  NAMBLAites!   Would it be acceptable for Swastika-clad Nazis or 'I love man-boy sex t-shirt' donning NAMBLAites to come to your library and distribute literature?  Why or why not?  Or even without distributing any lit, hang out in the children's room?

[dismalist]

Aha!  Nazis!  NAMBLAites!   Would it be acceptable for Swastika-clad Nazis or 'I love man-boy sex t-shirt' donning NAMBLAites to come to your library and distribute literature?  Why or why not?  Or even without distributing any lit, hang out in the children's room?

This example just repeats what's been on this thread, people disagreeing. What I gather is that many want to impose their will, as though there were no problem.

What we have now is the Namblaites making their desires known. The Nazis will not be far behind.

I personally want neither. To get neither, I need my own library and my own college and my own TV channel, and so on. That's desirable and feasible. If a local library or college invites in the Nazis or the Namablaites, let them. No one who doesn't want to has to have anythng to do with them.

People differ.