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.

[apl68]

This is exactly the sort of contempt for and refusal even to try to understand different points of view

I love you apl, but you've just pointed out the beam in your eye.

I've read your comments.  You are not always accepting of different points of view.

I register disagreement with different points of view.  I also refrain from insulting and belittling them, or calling anybody who doesn't agree with me a fool, a bigot, or a dogmatist.  I do find this sort of treatment of myself and others frustrating, and can't seem to help myself from expressing that frustration now and then.

As far as at least trying to understand other points of view goes, I do earnestly make the attempt.  Including on this matter.  I've read a substantial amount of opinion and personal memoir touching LGBT experience.  I just recently added to the library collection an item dealing with the matter that has some potential to be locally controversial, because it had viewpoints that I felt needed to be represented.  I'm not going to wave a red flag in front of the bull by placing it in the children's area--this particular item isn't for children anyway--or making a commemorative display of it to celebrate Pride Month.  It's here, in our library's catalog, on an ordinary public library shelf, quietly available for those who feel the need for it.

I'm a professional trying to do my professional duty in a cultural minefield.  It's not a situation that lends itself to simple or easy or sweeping answers.  I'm also trying to live out a faith that has values that our society increasingly considers out of step with its emerging mainstream.  That doesn't lend itself to simple or easy or sweeping answers either.  I wish that people would at least acknowledge that much. 

[onthefringe]

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"

[little bongo]

Well, to paraphrase Lenny Bruce, when you get into morality, it's always your morality. And then it's not morality anymore; it's mores.

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

 

[jimbogumbo]

Why does this remind me so much of separate but equal? Just as wrong.

[dismalist]

...

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.

[onthefringe]

...

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.

[dismalist]

...

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.

[onthefringe]

...

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.

[dismalist]

...

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! :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

You have a silly idea, Big-D, generated no doubt from the sort of conservative hurly-burly brewing in culture by people who want you to be angry at some nebulous, undefined "woke" culture.  I am surprised that someone with your intellect fell for it.  You are implicitly waving a white flag of sorts that no one will ever respond to.

I am sorry for the librarians caught in the middle.  Blame Republican politicians, preachers-cum-politicians, and rightwing propaganda outlets.  Oh, and the bigots who foster a culture of hate and paranoia.

In the meantime, make of this what you will for the hardcore conservative agenda: Even die-hard Republicans are getting fed up with a new conservative school board in Colorado as teachers quit in droves

[Wahoo Redux]

This is exactly the sort of contempt for and refusal even to try to understand different points of view

I love you apl, but you've just pointed out the beam in your eye.

I've read your comments.  You are not always accepting of different points of view.

I register disagreement with different points of view.  I also refrain from insulting and belittling them, or calling anybody who doesn't agree with me a fool, a bigot, or a dogmatist.  I do find this sort of treatment of myself and others frustrating, and can't seem to help myself from expressing that frustration now and then.

As far as at least trying to understand other points of view goes, I do earnestly make the attempt.  Including on this matter.  I've read a substantial amount of opinion and personal memoir touching LGBT experience.  I just recently added to the library collection an item dealing with the matter that has some potential to be locally controversial, because it had viewpoints that I felt needed to be represented.  I'm not going to wave a red flag in front of the bull by placing it in the children's area--this particular item isn't for children anyway--or making a commemorative display of it to celebrate Pride Month.  It's here, in our library's catalog, on an ordinary public library shelf, quietly available for those who feel the need for it.

I'm a professional trying to do my professional duty in a cultural minefield.  It's not a situation that lends itself to simple or easy or sweeping answers.  I'm also trying to live out a faith that has values that our society increasingly considers out of step with its emerging mainstream.  That doesn't lend itself to simple or easy or sweeping answers either.  I wish that people would at least acknowledge that much.

Again, apl, consider the psychological issues of being an outsider.  Whatever you face is not a fraction of what drag-queens, LGBTQ, and others face.  These people are truly in the crux of the culture wars.  You have a job, they have a life in the crosshairs.

I do remember you complaining that a gay man came to your library and was openly gay, and you wished he would have restrained his open homosexuality.  That's a beam.

And I would never suspect you of assaulting or insulting any LGBTQ to their face; you are not that kind of person at all-----but here you are both implicitly and sometimes explicitly condemning them.  Sorry. 

And yeah, traditional conservative and literalist Christianity is increasingly out of step with modern society.  There has been great good done in the name of Christ, and also great evil.  It is a little hard for moderns to overlook the evil, particularly as it seems to be ongoing. Moderns have their own moral compass, sometimes but not necessarily aligned with traditional ideals of Christianity.  Perhaps if we did not see you as adversarial more of us would reevaluate what we believe.

[Wahoo Redux]

...

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.

Do you really, truly, honestly think the bigots are going to go to bed just because the things they hate are in a separate building!?!?!? 

Come on, man.

The next step is to picket the "woke" libraries.  No one is fooled.  These worlds are already separated by choice, and the wingnuts are still not happy.

[nebo113]

from Wahoo:  "In the meantime, make of this what you will for the hardcore conservative agenda: Even die-hard Republicans are getting fed up with a new conservative school board in Colorado as teachers quit in droves"

I surmise that the school board is quite pleased that teachers are leaving.  OTOH:  If mental health issues are the cause of gun violence, as shouted by the right, then firing school counselors because mental health problems
should be handled at home seems .....

[marshwiggle]

I'm a professional trying to do my professional duty in a cultural minefield.  It's not a situation that lends itself to simple or easy or sweeping answers.  I'm also trying to live out a faith that has values that our society increasingly considers out of step with its emerging mainstream.  That doesn't lend itself to simple or easy or sweeping answers either.  I wish that people would at least acknowledge that much.

Again, apl, consider the psychological issues of being an outsider.  Whatever you face is not a fraction of what drag-queens, LGBTQ, and others face.  These people are truly in the crux of the culture wars.  You have a job, they have a life in the crosshairs.

The issue, as stated previously, is this:

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.

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.