Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[dismalist]

If I might, a little explanation about how library collection development and selection work:

Much of what libraries collect is simply a matter of getting what patrons are demanding.  This is especially true of public libraries.  School and academic libraries do some of this demand-directed acquisition as well. 

Libraries also attempt proactively to build collections of materials that will meet their community's interests and needs.  This is especially true of school and academic libraries, and to some extent of publics (Depending on the size of the library and the abundance of the acquisitions budget).  For this, they need the help of various selection aids that can give them recommendations about what to acquire in different areas.  These include:

Core collection guides with recommendations on a wide range of subjects.  These take the form of very expensive specialized volumes or database subscriptions.

Reviews by subject experts found in academic journals and the like.  May also include lists of recommendations prepared by subject experts (Librarians are quick to share and borrow things like this).

General review publications, such as The New York Times Book Review and the Times of London Literary Supplement.

Specialized library review publications, such as Library Journal, School Library Journal, and Horn Book.  These contain reviews and recommendations by librarians for librarians.  I have a lot of experience of using Library Journal as a review publication--in fact, that's the main thing we use it for here.

You use core collection guides when you're trying to build a collection from scratch or go back and beef up a collection using in-print, but not necessarily the latest, materials.  The review publications are for keeping up with the newest stuff that's coming out.  Librarians obviously can't personally read everything they acquire for their institutions.  We have to depend on reviews and recommendations from review publications to have an idea what to get.  And that's where...issues can arise.

Continued below

Continued from above

Library review publications like Library Journal can only review/recommend a small proportion of what gets published.  Within these limits, they try to cover a very broad number of categories for different needs and interests.  Some categories get reviewed with every issue, some only every few months, some mainly in occasional special interest sections.  So, for example, you can find reviews of a selection of social sciences and natural sciences titles in every issue, but specialized fiction genres, such as Christian historical romances or graphic novels, only in some issues.  You'll find an enormous variety of different types of items for an enormous variety of types of patrons in Library Journal.

That said, they have to prioritize...and it's pretty clear, if one reads LJ on a regular basis, that items representing certain types of perspectives have more priority, and are accorded more respect, than others.  I hesitate to use a term that tends to be thrown around very subjectively as an insult, but it's pretty fair to say that LJ, and the American Library Association's leadership in general, come across as being pretty "woke."  Items informed by intersectionality and LBG++++ perspectives are reviewed continually and usually praised and recommended to the skies by reviewers.  Items that represent more socially conservative perspectives, when they are reviewed at all, tend to be reviewed negatively, or at best damned with faint praise as suitable for (implicitly benighted) patrons that request them.  The social and political biases of most LJ reviewers come through loud and clear.  On several occasions I've seen reviews contain statements that many readers would find frankly hostile and insulting.

Let me make clear that I don't object to LJ reviewing works informed by intersectionality and LBG++++ perspectives.  They're being published, they're being read, and librarians are here to supply and serve all sorts of patrons.  What concerns me is the extent to which so much of the library profession's leadership is taking very clear sides in some very deeply controversial matters, stances that in many cases go beyond simply trying to make sure all groups are fairly served and into some pretty radical territory. They're trying to nudge libraries, library collections, and library services in general into that sort of radicalism and advocacy.

This is a carefully considered professional judgement on my part, and I am not unique among library professionals in having such concerns.  But these concerns are not welcome in many library professional circles, especially at a national level.  I and others have been concerned for a long time that many libraries and librarians have been needlessly courting a backlash through their advocacy, and through widely expressed attitudes of contempt and disrespect toward large segments of their communities that don't see things their way (I hear things at conferences).  And now, sure enough, we see that that backlash has arrived.

I do not approve of or support the legislation meddling in library affairs that we've been talking about on this thread.  I think it throws the baby out with the bathwater, and risks creating all sorts of unintended consequences.  In the analog, in-person world I've stood up and told local and state elected officials as much.  I do, however, understand the concerns that have sparked the backlash, I do believe that some of them are legitimate, and I do believe that most of this backlash could have been avoided if segments of the library profession hadn't made such a point of courting it in the first place.

I very much appreciate the day-to-day work of librarians. But even with the best of will book choices cannot be made that will please everybody. Unanimity guarantees no one is made worse off, but there can be no unanimity here. The source of the problem is that one side considers the others side's book choices pollution and the other side insists on its books. There can be no compromise. The fundamental question is not "which books?", but rather "who owns the library?" And that is a political question.

What would work to preserve the peace is separate libraries [and yes, separate schools].

[Wahoo Redux]

What concerns me is the extent to which so much of the library profession's leadership is taking very clear sides in some very deeply controversial matters, stances that in many cases go beyond simply trying to make sure all groups are fairly served and into some pretty radical territory. They're trying to nudge libraries, library collections, and library services in general into that sort of radicalism and advocacy.

At the heart of this is not a fear of "controversy," which will always be a facet of a free speech society, but the concern, often draped in euphemisms and ironic defenses of respect and inclusion, that the morally incorrect things are being taught.  As always, the default is 'they-are-trying-to-get-the-children' in the age of terrible abuse of children, usually female, by Christians of all stripes and a number of pseudo-religious charlatans building fraudulent empires off of vulnerable people...

I'm sorry, but I have no trouble with the idea that the "library profession's leadership is taking very clear sides in some very deeply controversial matters."  Good for them.  They are on the right side----the right side of history and the right side of morality. 

[Wahoo Redux]

What would work to preserve the peace is separate libraries [and yes, separate schools].

I think you're talking about re-education camps rather than allowing people to make up their own minds.

[dismalist]

What would work to preserve the peace is separate libraries [and yes, separate schools].

I think you're talking about re-education camps rather than allowing people to make up their own minds.

When children come of age, they can choose. Not before.

Meanwhile, my child stays in my camp, me deciding all kinds of stuff. The fundamental question is: Who owns the camp?

Separate camps, otherwise, there won't be peace.

[ciao_yall]

What would work to preserve the peace is separate libraries [and yes, separate schools].

I think you're talking about re-education camps rather than allowing people to make up their own minds.

When children come of age, they can choose. Not before.

Meanwhile, my child stays in my camp, me deciding all kinds of stuff. The fundamental question is: Who owns the camp?

Separate camps, otherwise, there won't be peace.

So... never let your children leave the house? Meet other children whose families are different from yours? Read every book your child brought home from the library before allowing them to see it themselves?

As an example - I am not a vegetarian. Animals are delicious. And their skins look great on boots and jackets, and their cocoons make lovely dresses and blouses.

Let's say I had children and they came home from the library with a book by PETA, or came home from the household of a family who was strongly into vegan/animal rights. Would I... call the library and insist they toss the book or that the family... I dunno, serve a big juicy steak when my kid came over? 

I would talk to my child. "Well people think differently about a lot of things. What do you think? What questions do you have? I believe X. Others believe Y. That's certainly worth thinking about."

Because children are people and capable of independent thought.

[dismalist]

What would work to preserve the peace is separate libraries [and yes, separate schools].

I think you're talking about re-education camps rather than allowing people to make up their own minds.

When children come of age, they can choose. Not before.

Meanwhile, my child stays in my camp, me deciding all kinds of stuff. The fundamental question is: Who owns the camp?

Separate camps, otherwise, there won't be peace.

So... never let your children leave the house? Meet other children whose families are different from yours? Read every book your child brought home from the library before allowing them to see it themselves?

As an example - I am not a vegetarian. Animals are delicious. And their skins look great on boots and jackets, and their cocoons make lovely dresses and blouses.

Let's say I had children and they came home from the library with a book by PETA, or came home from the household of a family who was strongly into vegan/animal rights. Would I... call the library and insist they toss the book or that the family... I dunno, serve a big juicy steak when my kid came over? 

I would talk to my child. "Well people think differently about a lot of things. What do you think? What questions do you have? I believe X. Others believe Y. That's certainly worth thinking about."

Because children are people and capable of independent thought.

It's not about a book or set of books,  and it's not about the specific things one does or doesn't do to educate a child. It's about who has the authority to decide. This must be, and will be, decided through politics.

[Wahoo Redux]

What would work to preserve the peace is separate libraries [and yes, separate schools].

I think you're talking about re-education camps rather than allowing people to make up their own minds.

When children come of age, they can choose. Not before.

Meanwhile, my child stays in my camp, me deciding all kinds of stuff. The fundamental question is: Who owns the camp?

Separate camps, otherwise, there won't be peace.

So?  Go to your own camp.  That's your kid, do whatever you think is best.  Don't try to foist your private camp on my public camp, however, and if you want to fund your private camp, I could care less. It sure worked out well for the Duggars. 

That really is the issue.  Do not pretend like you "own" the library.  You don't.  And neither do I.  Have all the copies of Bun-Hur you like.  I will stock Heather Has Two Mommies.

But I suspect there will not be peace, and the conservatives are getting so desperate they are boycotting beer.  You will never get what you want, Big-D. 

[Wahoo Redux]

So... never let your children leave the house? Meet other children whose families are different from yours? Read every book your child brought home from the library before allowing them to see it themselves?


Because children are people and capable of independent thought.

That's part of the reason I post as I do.  I'm getting tired of the bullshit 'for-God's-sake-won't-someone-think-of-the-children' topos.  It is a bullshit pretense.  There will always be certain people who will react with inborn prejudice, and that's what this whole book business is all about.  As always, they rely on the lie that they cannot adequately protect their children if people live differently or think differently than they do.  Pretend otherwise.

Since our censors in this age can no longer rely on "public decency" or some such crap, they must figure out some way to claim victimhood.  Apparently some people can't even browse the library if there are books on the shelves with ideas they disagree with.  It's all a confabulation to try and control what people think and do.  And it is failing spectacularly.

And I hate to tell'ya, folks, but your kids are gonna find out.  Particularly in the age of information.  The library is probably the last bastion of sane information about things like sexuality and choice.  Don't kid yourself that you can sequester them in your camp.  It won't work. 

[kaysixteen]

Like it or not, libraryland in the USA is amongst the most lefty graduate-educated professions.  There are a variety of reasons for this, but that it is, is beyond any disputing.

A challenge for folks here, esp those not living in 'Bible belt' locales-- go into your local PL, and if it uses the Dewey Decimal system, as most still do, look at the 200s century.   You will not find many titles even there, and those that are there are not, ahem, exactly slanted towards traditional/conservative American religious views.

[marshwiggle]

So... never let your children leave the house? Meet other children whose families are different from yours? Read every book your child brought home from the library before allowing them to see it themselves?


Because children are people and capable of independent thought.

That's part of the reason I post as I do.  I'm getting tired of the bullshit 'for-God's-sake-won't-someone-think-of-the-children' topos.  It is a bullshit pretense. 

You do realize that all kinds of pro-trans lobbying uses exactly the argument that the children are at risk?

Both sides use that argument.

[ciao_yall]

It's not about a book or set of books,  and it's not about the specific things one does or doesn't do to educate a child. It's about who has the authority to decide. This must be, and will be, decided through politics.

So, some "majority" gets to decide what books my community is allowed to access at the public library?

What if that "majority" decides that there should be a wide variety of books so the community of adults and children get exposed to all sorts of ideas, lifestyles, and experiences?

Because I think that 99% of the time, that has been the purpose of the public library. To expand the world for everyone, not to reinforce a few politically connected points of view.

[apl68]

What concerns me is the extent to which so much of the library profession's leadership is taking very clear sides in some very deeply controversial matters, stances that in many cases go beyond simply trying to make sure all groups are fairly served and into some pretty radical territory. They're trying to nudge libraries, library collections, and library services in general into that sort of radicalism and advocacy.

At the heart of this is not a fear of "controversy," which will always be a facet of a free speech society, but the concern, often draped in euphemisms and ironic defenses of respect and inclusion, that the morally incorrect things are being taught.  As always, the default is 'they-are-trying-to-get-the-children' in the age of terrible abuse of children, usually female, by Christians of all stripes and a number of pseudo-religious charlatans building fraudulent empires off of vulnerable people...

I'm sorry, but I have no trouble with the idea that the "library profession's leadership is taking very clear sides in some very deeply controversial matters."  Good for them.  They are on the right side----the right side of history and the right side of morality.

This is exactly the sort of contempt for and refusal even to try to understand different points of view that I see within much of the library profession now, and which I believe has done so much to undermine librarians' and libraries' standing in many communities.

I'm not against you here, Wahoo.  I'm a loyal member of the library profession who believes in libraries as a place where people can freely learn about all kinds of things.  As I've said above, I've spoken out publicly and to elected representatives against this legislation.  But I see a lot of lack of understanding and respect on the part of many librarians toward substantial segments of the communities that they serve.  I don't believe that they should just cave in to those segments of the community, but they have to actually hear them and address their concerns.  Librarians should be finding ways to navigate through the culture wars, not picking sides in them.  Any sides.

[apl68]

I very much appreciate the day-to-day work of librarians. But even with the best of will book choices cannot be made that will please everybody. Unanimity guarantees no one is made worse off, but there can be no unanimity here. The source of the problem is that one side considers the others side's book choices pollution and the other side insists on its books. There can be no compromise. The fundamental question is not "which books?", but rather "who owns the library?" And that is a political question.

What would work to preserve the peace is separate libraries [and yes, separate schools].

Well, that would kind of defeat the whole idea of libraries as a public good, wouldn't it?

[downer]

Cue the libertarian response, from Maggie's lips. "There is no such thing as society." And so there is no such thing as a public good.

[dismalist]

I very much appreciate the day-to-day work of librarians. But even with the best of will book choices cannot be made that will please everybody. Unanimity guarantees no one is made worse off, but there can be no unanimity here. The source of the problem is that one side considers the others side's book choices pollution and the other side insists on its books. There can be no compromise. The fundamental question is not "which books?", but rather "who owns the library?" And that is a political question.

What would work to preserve the peace is separate libraries [and yes, separate schools].

Well, that would kind of defeat the whole idea of libraries as a public good, wouldn't it?

Libraries are a publicly financed good. There is nothing wrong with having libraries of different flavors.