Libraries and the Culture Wars

[apl68]

In recent weeks there has been discussion at The Fora about certain controversies involving efforts, by local citizens and now by state legislatures, to remove items from school libraries.  Since library controversies of all sorts are getting more common, and I myself am a librarian, I've felt a responsibility to share my own perspective on such matters.  I've been trying for weeks to figure out what to say and how.  Here's what I've come up with.  For readability's sake, I'm dividing it into three posts.  I'd ask that people read them all before responding.

Libraries usually exist to serve a particular school or other community's needs.  Most librarians are strongly motivated by a desire to serve their communities.  They'd rather be able to do this without the interference of particular forces, inside or especially outside the community, who are trying to advance particular agendas.  I doubt I welcome the idea of having the place where I work co-opted by some political or cultural agenda any more than any other librarian does.  The idea of state or federal government trying this is especially disturbing.

I have to say, though, that I understand both sides of the issues we've seen discussed here recently.  The challenged materials in question by and large are aimed at normalizing, encouraging, and even promoting lifestyle choices that many people, myself included, strongly disagree with, and fear will often prove ultimately self-destructive to the people making them.  We mostly believe this for religious reasons.  Our beliefs have rapidly become a minority in contemporary society, but they aren't fringe beliefs.  Millions of us still share them, for what we believe are deeply compelling reasons. 

I'm sorry that these beliefs give such offense, but we can't just drop our beliefs or pretend we don't have them.  Kaysixteen hasn't been willing to do this at The Fora, and has gotten a lot of grief for it.  While I don't agree with everything about the way kay has presented his stance, I think he has shown admirable courage in taking it in the face of such opposition.  And while we don't share exactly the same perspective on things, I do agree with kay's concerns at a fundamental level.  This is why I understand the motivations behind the materials challenges.

The people making the materials challenges at libraries are acting because they feel they have no choice but to challenge what they see happening in their schools and libraries.  To be honest, libraries have done a lot to court these challenges.  The materials in question are so common in libraries now because library professional organizations, particularly at the national level, have been actively pushing them.  Librarians at the local level often make use of recommended purchase lists and professional association award winner lists—and in recent years these lists have been heavily larded with works on LBG+++ themes.  The materials are getting bolder and edgier, especially in the young adult realm.

To put it another way, American library professional associations are taking a very definite stance on some of our day's most divisive cultural issues.  There is something seriously problematic about this.  Yes, intellectual freedom is a key value of libraries and librarians.  Intellectual freedom includes the freedom to hold, and voice and live by dissenting opinions and beliefs.  I don't like having to deal with a materials challenge any more than any other librarian would, but a library serves the public, is supported by the public, and we have to recognize that there are times when members of the public feel the need to take action to make their concerns known.  Materials challenges are a way of doing this.

Professional organizations should give their members the same chance to be heard.  But the American Library Association, and its sister organizations at the national level, has made it clear how and what it wants its members to believe on certain issues.  I am not a member of the ALA, because I frankly feel that somebody with my religious beliefs is no longer welcome there.  Maybe some would say "good riddance," but, again, my beliefs aren't way out on the fringes.  A national professional organization that effectively writes off substantial chunks of the public it serves has problems.

[apl68]

I don't dissent with the ALA only because of my religious beliefs.  I also consider its radical stances on some issues deeply problematic for professional reasons.  The ALA's priorities and advocacy have pushed libraries into the cultural wars on a particular side.  I've been concerned for years now that this would draw a backlash.  My concerns are now being realized.

The ALA often speaks of making libraries "safe spaces" for different groups.  This is a laudable goal.  A library should be a safe space for all members of the community.  Taking a radical stance on divisive cultural and political issues, however, threatens this.

I'll give an example from the public library world, where I have most of my own experience.  In recent years there's been a great vogue, enthusiastically supported by the ALA, for "drag queen story hours" for children.  Some view these as fun events that promote inclusivity and diversity.  Others, for deeply held reasons, consider drag shows disturbing and kind of sick.  And consider the thought of such programs targeted at children deeply alarming. 

What are parents with such concerns supposed to think when their local library starts holding such programs?  Of course they have the option of simply not taking their children to them.  But these shows are going to be very visible in the library's programming and promotion.  They are also going to make parents wonder what else the library plans to expose their children to, perhaps without warning.  For these families—and once again, they may be a minority in contemporary America, but they're not uncommon—the library has come to feel like a very unsafe space.  This is not good library service.  It risks pushing these families out of the library altogether.

And it leads to backlash.  In the past year certain public libraries in my home state of Arkansas have jumped on the drag queen story hour bandwagon.  I'm personally acquainted with some of the librarians involved.  They seem like good people, and conscientious professionals.  In my opinion, though, they have exercised very poor professional judgement in needlessly alarming and alienating segments of their local public.

The result has been a disastrous backlash.  At one library system members of the voting public, by a substantial margin, voted to punish the library at the last election by cutting the library's operating income in half.  This was a terrible, throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water overreaction.  It will seriously damage ordinary, uncontroversial library services on which much of the public depends.  As deplorable as this voter action is, though, in my opinion much of the blame lies with the librarians who so needlessly burned bridges with so much of the public they were there to serve.

If libraries don't learn some lessons from this, we're going to see more of this sort of backlash.  We're going to see more interference with local libraries by governments and organizations of different stripes, from both ends of the political spectrum.  We're going to see segments of the public deciding that they can no longer trust their local public libraries as a safe place for their children.  As a librarian, I do not want anybody telling us here how to deal with our local patrons—not Little Rock, not Washington, not the American Library Association, not the American Family Association.  Libraries are going to become yet more collateral damage of the culture wars, and the blame will by no means lie all on one side.

[apl68]

Last week, at a public presentation in our community, I said pretty much what I've just said above (One of those present, BTW, was our local legislative representative, whom I did not anticipate being there).  I urged everybody there to think hard about the wisdom of using the blunt instrument of legislation to deal with their legitimate and understandable library concerns.  I pointed out that what might seem like a good idea in the short term could end up setting precedents that could have very unexpected long-term boomerang effects.  I urged them, if they've got concerns about what's going on at the library, to come to us, the librarians, and let us work something out within the community.

If somebody in the community our library serves wants LBG+++ materials at the library, then we are bound to order them as part of our community service, regardless of my personal feelings about them.  It comes with the territory.  It's not like I don't already have to do this as part of my job—I don't agree with all the trashy romances, gory thrillers, or crackpot political tracts that various members of the public have had me order over the years either. 

What I won't do is take divisive or radical stances in the library's programming or promotional efforts that needlessly alarm and alienate large segments of our community.  This would be irresponsible on my and the library's part.  All sorts of people should be able to feel safe using our library.

One little story to conclude.  One of our dearest and most faithful long-term patrons, now deceased, was a man who came "out" some years back.  I don't know whether he was ever sexually active.  I do know that he made his orientation public in a low-key and non-confrontational way.  And people around here let him be. 

He never ordered LGB materials at the library.  His interests lay in other directions.  He was a minor published historian, who did much of his research and writing here.  Since I'm a former history PhD student, and he was the only academically-trained historian I had a chance to speak with on a regular basis, I enjoyed visiting with him now and then at work.  We all did.  He was a nice guy. 

We were people with very different ideas, interests, and I'm sure life experiences who found common ground at the library.  Libraries are great places for that—if groups and politicians with agendas of all sorts will let us be so that we can get on with our business.

[marshwiggle]

Well said.

What I won't do is take divisive or radical stances in the library's programming or promotional efforts that needlessly alarm and alienate large segments of our community.  This would be irresponsible on my and the library's part.  All sorts of people should be able to feel safe using our library.

I think in the culture at large, as well as in academia, there has been this push to "activism" as morally required. (e.g. "If you're not an anti-racist, you're a racist.") In the past, it was recognized that diversity of thought meant that the community contained many viewpoints, and so public institutions, like libraries, were supposed to stick to their core mission and be as officially neutral on those other issues as possible. That made those institutions "safe spaces" for people with varied opinions. Sadly, the "activism" has thrown that out. ( I remember when public libraries used to have displays about books that were, at one time or another, burned, to show how the library was in the business of allowing people to make up their own minds. It's especially ironic to think that some of the people creating those displays in the past are now trying to ban books themselves.)

I'm optimistic that someday that wisdom will return, but it may take a while.

[Wahoo Redux]

Well, as someone who was in the nexus of the discussion you allude to (and since I am writing real stuff very slowly today) I can respond first, I guess.

Kay seems like a decent sort----except when the hate is not quite contained in his commentary.  Which is what you are supporting, apl, even though I am sure you do not mean to.  You invoke the public, Christianity, and morality, yet what you are supporting are people who, for whatever reason, are attracted to hate.

For instance,

In my opinion, though, they have exercised very poor professional judgement in needlessly alarming and alienating segments of their local public.

The result has been a disastrous backlash.  At one library system members of the voting public, by a substantial margin, voted to punish the library at the last election by cutting the library's operating income in half.  This was a terrible, throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water overreaction.  It will seriously damage ordinary, uncontroversial library services on which much of the public depends.  As deplorable as this voter action is, though, in my opinion much of the blame lies with the librarians who so needlessly burned bridges with so much of the public they were there to serve.

Every time a prejudice is confronted, the bigots backlash.  Would you have said the same thing about  the politics involving Martin Luther King?  I am sure you think you wouldn't, but lots and lots and lots of good very religious peeps did.  Those folks approached race and integration on very much the same grounds that you do.  You are not the first person with a prejudice who feels that you are protecting society from those that would disturb the status quo.

One of our dearest and most faithful long-term patrons, now deceased, was a man who came "out" some years back.  I don't know whether he was ever sexually active.  I do know that he made his orientation public in a low-key and non-confrontational way.  And people around here let him be.

Are you suggesting that LGBTQ people should just keep their place?  Not rock the boat so as not to disturb all the good people who don't want to know they exist?  Stay invisible men and women?  Be afraid?   Live essentially underground so that the bigots can feel righteous? 

"And people around here let him be" sounds amazingly ominous; I am sure you did not mean it to, but I think your words actually carry a significant weight.

I am going to say the same thing I did last time: you may have whatever beliefs you like, but please do not try to enforce them in my life or the lives of other people who are not Christian or do not share your prejudices, particularly if you are a government institution.  There are laws to this effect, actually, that are rooted in the Constitution.

And have whatever beliefs you like, but be prepared for someone like me to challenge them, particularly if you work for a government entity, particularly if that entity belongs to the public, a public that includes LGBTQ people who do not want to live in the shadows and have done nothing wrong. 

And before you condemn the LGBTQ peeps for what you THINK they might do to society, look at the church-----everything from the Tammy Faye Baker controversy to Catholic pedophile priests protected by the church to Florida pastors facilitating COVID scams to Josh Duggar after his own father condemned homosexuality as pedophilia.  Your stable is not so clean, actually, despite all the good the church does.  Likewise for heterosexual marriage, parenting, and relationships in general.

I know you are a person of very good will, apl, but what you support is prejudice, plain and simple.  You are working hard to justify it.  Look in your heart.

[Wahoo Redux]

... it was recognized that diversity of thought meant that the community contained many viewpoints, and so public institutions, like libraries, were supposed to stick to their core mission and be as officially neutral on those other issues as possible.

<snip>

I remember when public libraries used to have displays about books that were, at one time or another, burned, to show how the library was in the business of allowing people to make up their own minds. It's especially ironic to think that some of the people creating those displays in the past are now trying to ban books themselves.

You do know that this whole thing started because certain conservative parents tried to ban books from the library, right?

Walk your talk, baby.

[dismalist]

That's quite the philippic, apl68!

I completely agree that local people should get what they want, locally, and not what they don't want. After all, they are paying for the material. To promote that properly, we have to understand how we got here. The example of the ALA is apt. It's easy for extremists to infiltrate an organization. Many other professional organizations have been taken over by the extreme left. Now, such organizations are not government, but they live in symbiosis with government. They don't need to be pushed to follow the political wind; they have their sensors in the wind.

Thus, lack of local control and consequent lack of variety is an outcome of central government influence, not law. The only way to combat that central government influence is with other government influence! Fortunately, we have States to do so. Not nearly all will, and some will do it ham handedly, at least at first.

But I see no alternative.

[marshwiggle]

Every time a prejudice is confronted, the bigots backlash.  Would you have said the same thing about  the politics involving Martin Luther King?  I am sure you think you wouldn't, but lots and lots and lots of good very religious peeps did.  Those folks approached race and integration on very much the same grounds that you do.  You are not the first person with a prejudice who feels that you are protecting society from those that would disturb the status quo.

One thing that is not at all clear from apl's post is whether not having "Drag Queen Story Time" requires removing all sorts of materials from the shelves. One does not automatically imply the other. That's the whole point of the library remaining officially neutral about such things. People are free to read about whatever they wish and form their own opinions about them.

The opposite of censorship is not indoctrination. In fact, the opposite of censorship is intellectual freedom, which implies an avoidance of ideological indoctrination. (If librarians want to engage in marches, etc. on their own time, as private citizens, they're welcome to do so.)

[Wahoo Redux]

Every time a prejudice is confronted, the bigots backlash.  Would you have said the same thing about  the politics involving Martin Luther King?  I am sure you think you wouldn't, but lots and lots and lots of good very religious peeps did.  Those folks approached race and integration on very much the same grounds that you do.  You are not the first person with a prejudice who feels that you are protecting society from those that would disturb the status quo.

One thing that is not at all clear from apl's post is whether not having "Drag Queen Story Time" requires removing all sorts of materials from the shelves. One does not automatically imply the other. That's the whole point of the library remaining officially neutral about such things. People are free to read about whatever they wish and form their own opinions about them.

The opposite of censorship is not indoctrination. In fact, the opposite of censorship is intellectual freedom, which implies an avoidance of ideological indoctrination. (If librarians want to engage in marches, etc. on their own time, as private citizens, they're welcome to do so.)

So?  Quit trying to indoctrinate people, Marshbeast.  Let them read and go to storytimes and make up their own minds.  Allow intellectual freedom-----which is what you are opposing.

[jimbogumbo]

Thank you apl68. I'll just say we disagree, and remind everyone one of the pulled books on the list I linked to was about Michelle Obama. Nothing about LGBTQ issues involved at all.

I stand by everything I wrote about kay, and anyone else who agrees with him. If you hate my sister and her wife, along with their son, you are a bigot. If the thought of reading Heather Has Two Mommies makes you lose your lunch, you are a bigot.

[dismalist]

Let's get freedom of choice and censorship straight:

-I am for legalized prostitution. That does not mean that everybody has to allow a brothel next door.

-I am for legalization of heroin. That does not mean that everyone has to shoot himself up.

-I am for freedom of expression. That does not mean I need tolerate billboards advertising pornography across my street.

-I am for freedom of the press. That does not mean I have to read or even see all the garbage, nor, most importantly, that my children have to see it.

-I am for freedom of religion. That does not mean I have to abide by any.

-I am for equal civil rights for everybody. That does not mean I have to associate with anybody.

People differ in their tastes.

No boundaries, no freedom.

[Wahoo Redux]

Let's get freedom of choice and censorship straight:

-I am for legalized prostitution. That does not mean that everybody has to allow a brothel next door.

-I am for legalization of heroin. That does not mean that everyone has to shoot himself up.

-I am for freedom of expression. That does not mean I need tolerate billboards advertising pornography across my street.

-I am for freedom of the press. That does not mean I have to read or even see all the garbage, nor, most importantly, that my children have to see it.

-I am for freedom of religion. That does not mean I have to abide by any.

-I am for equal civil rights for everybody. That does not mean I have to associate with anybody.

People differ in their tastes.

No boundaries, no freedom.

So? 

---Don't become a john and don't buy a house next to a metallurgic factory, a sawmill, or a brothel, or any other business that would disturb your delicate sensibilities (you are safe anyway----there are zoning laws);
---do not use heroine;
---do not look at the offensive billboard (do as the Duggars do and look at your shoes----but you'll be okay, there are public decency laws);
---do not read stuff you don't want and perform due diligence as a parent (don't expect the government to do your parenting for you----watch what your kids read but leave my books and moves alone);
---don't go to church if you want to stay home and watch football (just don't try to stop other people from going to church because it might imping on your sense personal violation because they do);
---don't hang out with anyone you don't want...just remember you are not so important that you can tell other people where they can or cannot go unless it is your own house.

Respect other people as you want them to respect you.

And none of that has any equivalency to LBGTQ rights.

[marshwiggle]

Every time a prejudice is confronted, the bigots backlash.  Would you have said the same thing about  the politics involving Martin Luther King?  I am sure you think you wouldn't, but lots and lots and lots of good very religious peeps did.  Those folks approached race and integration on very much the same grounds that you do.  You are not the first person with a prejudice who feels that you are protecting society from those that would disturb the status quo.

One thing that is not at all clear from apl's post is whether not having "Drag Queen Story Time" requires removing all sorts of materials from the shelves. One does not automatically imply the other. That's the whole point of the library remaining officially neutral about such things. People are free to read about whatever they wish and form their own opinions about them.

The opposite of censorship is not indoctrination. In fact, the opposite of censorship is intellectual freedom, which implies an avoidance of ideological indoctrination. (If librarians want to engage in marches, etc. on their own time, as private citizens, they're welcome to do so.)

So?  Quit trying to indoctrinate people, Marshbeast.  Let them read and go to storytimes and make up their own minds.  Allow intellectual freedom-----which is what you are opposing.

So would having clerics of various religious groups come in to the library and doing storytime from their own religious texts be a good thing as well, since that's about intellectual freedom?

[ciao_yall]

Thank you, apl68 for your thoughtful words. Yes, I read the whole thing before responding. And I'm rereading it as I respond.

A few thoughts...

To put it another way, American library professional associations are taking a very definite stance on some of our day's most divisive cultural issues.  There is something seriously problematic about this.  Yes, intellectual freedom is a key value of libraries and librarians.  Intellectual freedom includes the freedom to hold, and voice and live by dissenting opinions and beliefs.  I don't like having to deal with a materials challenge any more than any other librarian would, but a library serves the public, is supported by the public, and we have to recognize that there are times when members of the public feel the need to take action to make their concerns known. Materials challenges are a way of doing this.

There a subtle point here. Including, as well as not including certain books, are both forms of taking a very definite stance on an issue. There is no neutral ground.

At one library system members of the voting public, by a substantial margin, voted to punish the library at the last election by cutting the library's operating income in half.  This was a terrible, throwing-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water overreaction.  It will seriously damage ordinary, uncontroversial library services on which much of the public depends.  As deplorable as this voter action is, though, in my opinion much of the blame lies with the librarians who so needlessly burned bridges with so much of the public they were there to serve.

And... define uncontroversial? Who gets to decide? "I disagree and am uncomfortable with this..." because of... what? Gay teen YA fiction? Boy penguins pairing up? Scat porn? Holocaust denials? Yay, KKK?

If somebody in the community our library serves wants LBG+++ materials at the library, then we are bound to order them as part of our community service, regardless of my personal feelings about them.  It comes with the territory.  It's not like I don't already have to do this as part of my job—I don't agree with all the trashy romances, gory thrillers, or crackpot political tracts that various members of the public have had me order over the years either.

What I won't do is take divisive or radical stances in the library's programming or promotional efforts that needlessly alarm and alienate large segments of our community.  This would be irresponsible on my and the library's part.  All sorts of people should be able to feel safe using our library.

You and I are in "violent agreement" on this point. That said, some of those who are "alarmed and alienated," instead of trying to make sure alternative points of view are shared in a way that builds understanding, are trying to force these ideas into hiding and block the people who wish to explore these ideas.

I live in a city with a big drag queen scene. I wouldn't want to tell someone who didn't like it that their only choice was to move, still, I wouldn't want to tell the drag queens to tone it down because someone might be uncomfortable.

On hot days, certain neighborhoods go clothing optional. As a community, we generally agree that naked is fine, but no overt sexualized behavior. Takes a little getting used to for some people.

We were people with very different ideas, interests, and I'm sure life experiences who found common ground at the library.  Libraries are great places for that—if groups and politicians with agendas of all sorts will let us be so that we can get on with our business.

If you take away the language of dissent, you take away the language of agreement and greater understanding.

These books need to be included so that all people can share their points of view and learn from one another.

If the intention is to take away those conversations, which is what some of these materials challenges are trying to do, then it cannot stand.

[jimbogumbo]

So would having clerics of various religious groups come in to the library and doing storytime from their own religious texts be a good thing as well, since that's about intellectual freedom?

In my view, of course.