Libraries and the Culture Wars

[marshwiggle]

Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.

Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.

And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?

I'm suggesting they should as much as possible try to avoid endorsements (explicit or implicit) of viewpoints that are not widely-held. (The majority of people in society rarely hold extreme views from either end of the political spectrum.) They should be like the ideal moderator of a debate; one who may hold opinions, even strong ones, but who places the value of open enquiry above their personal preferences for the performance of their duty. So, for example, I'd avoid having the creationist speak at the library, and I'd avoid Richard Dawkins basically saying organized religion is for idiots. Both of those will produce animosity rather than community spirit.
So if that means libraries seem somewhat timid in their stance, so be it. The thing they should not be timid about is supporting people studying, thinking, and making up their own minds.

[Kron3007]

Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.

Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.

And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?

I'm suggesting they should as much as possible try to avoid endorsements (explicit or implicit) of viewpoints that are not widely-held. (The majority of people in society rarely hold extreme views from either end of the political spectrum.) They should be like the ideal moderator of a debate; one who may hold opinions, even strong ones, but who places the value of open enquiry above their personal preferences for the performance of their duty. So, for example, I'd avoid having the creationist speak at the library, and I'd avoid Richard Dawkins basically saying organized religion is for idiots. Both of those will produce animosity rather than community spirit.
So if that means libraries seem somewhat timid in their stance, so be it. The thing they should not be timid about is supporting people studying, thinking, and making up their own minds.

There is a fundamental difference between religious groups and LGBT groups organizing functions at a library   Drag queens are not trying to convert you, they are just raising awareness and acceptance of a marginalized group (something Christians should embrace).  Without knowing the details of these so calls drag queen reading groups, it is hard to have much of an opinion, but based on previous sensationalism I suspect they are pretty benign and it is being twisted.

Really though, if you don't like it, don't attend...

[waterboy]

Back to the role of librarians - do we not hire such folks for their ability to use their discretion in choosing library materials? To me, this argument is just another in a long line of dismissing professional expertise over what a more vocal group thinks is correct.

[apl68]

Back to the role of librarians - do we not hire such folks for their ability to use their discretion in choosing library materials? To me, this argument is just another in a long line of dismissing professional expertise over what a more vocal group thinks is correct.

Yes!

[apl68]

Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.

Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.

And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?

I'm suggesting they should as much as possible try to avoid endorsements (explicit or implicit) of viewpoints that are not widely-held. (The majority of people in society rarely hold extreme views from either end of the political spectrum.) They should be like the ideal moderator of a debate; one who may hold opinions, even strong ones, but who places the value of open enquiry above their personal preferences for the performance of their duty. So, for example, I'd avoid having the creationist speak at the library, and I'd avoid Richard Dawkins basically saying organized religion is for idiots. Both of those will produce animosity rather than community spirit.
So if that means libraries seem somewhat timid in their stance, so be it. The thing they should not be timid about is supporting people studying, thinking, and making up their own minds.

This is kind of what I was trying to get at.  Libraries have a lot of different kinds of groups--often very different kinds of groups--competing to use and influence them.  Things that one group may consider entirely unexceptionable can totally offend and put off another group.  A good librarian tries hard not to write off or give offense to any of them.  It's not just a matter of not censoring particular groups.  It's also a matter of bending over backwards at times to avoid looking like you're playing favorites.

For example, our library doesn't allow religious or political groups of any kind to use our community room facilities for meetings.  Period.  It's so difficult to keep from looking to one group like you're favoring another one over them that it's best to play it really safe.  Most libraries I've seen don't welcome religious meetings either, or let religious groups distribute literature through the library, or put up displays celebrating particular religious groups.  At our library we let church groups post occasional flyers for upcoming events alongside other event flyers on the bulletin board, and put an occasional donated bible on the free table among all our secular free books, and that's it.  If we were to then start putting up displays highlighting LBG++ materials and promoting Pride Week, hosting drag queen story hours and the like, then a lot of members of our community would assume that we were taking sides and trying to promote these things.  And, again, they'd feel offended, they'd be concerned about what else their children might be exposed to, and we'd have burned our bridges with a large segment of our community.

There's a sense in which librarians have to try to keep the peace--which is becoming more and more challenging all the time.  We don't censor books here, but we censor ourselves quite a bit when dealing with the public.  Sometimes it does mean we look timid, as marshy says.  Maybe state legislatures and message-board posters and the ALA looking in from outside don't agree with our choices.  But we're the ones on the ground who know our communities, and that should count for something when trying to figure out how to negotiate the minefields of today.  It behooves us to do so with more caution than some librarians I can think of have shown.

[apl68]

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.

I gather from the above that you believe that I consider LGB people morally inferior and and Christians morally superior.  Which I never said, nor do I believe.  I don't believe that gay people are "worse" people than anybody else, and I don't believe that Christians are "better" people than anybody else.  Making these sorts of distinctions would be contrary to New Testament teaching.  The New Testament teaches that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.  No matter what we grew up believing, no matter how "good" we have tried to be or like to think we are, we are all sinners and failures in God's sight, and justly condemned by God for our sins. 

The only thing that makes followers of Jesus any different from anybody else is that we've admitted what we are, we've admitted that we can't fix it ourselves, and we've trusted in God's grace through Jesus' sacrifice for us to save us.  And have then followed through on that by allowing Jesus' influence to produce radical change in our lives.  That doesn't mean we'll live perfect lives, but it does mean we will live lives characterized by an earnest striving to follow a higher standard than the world around us sets.  That means striving to avoid things like envy, greed, anger, hatred, substance abuse, and sexual immorality in all its forms.  It means striving to practice things like love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, humility, and general self control.  Again, nobody can ever be perfect in this life, but if somebody is unapologetically practicing greed, or envy, or anger, or hatred, or substance abuse, or sexual immorality, then God's Word says that that person will not see the kingdom of God, absent a turning away from those things.  Neither will somebody who avoids all that stuff but doesn't seem to care much about love, joy, peace, etc. 

And that's where the issue that Christians who see the New Testament as the paramount authority of their faith have a problem with LGB etc. practices.  They are forms of sexual immorality.  The unapologetic practice of such things is a sign that a person is lost and in danger of being condemned by God in eternity.  We don't want to see that happen to people, nor do we want to see other people encouraged to engage in such practices as well.  We want to warn them that they need to change their lives--just like everybody, in some way or another, needs to change. 

You've told me above to examine my heart.  I do that quite often.  I often see things that I need to change, and try, with God's help, to change them.  Here's what my heart tells me about gay people.  If they insist on practicing the lifestyles that they feel the desire to practice, then that is a sign that they will go to Hell.  I don't want them to go to Hell, because I love people in general.  I love people enough that I pray for people who've murdered friends of mine, and others who have treated me abusively.  If I was to shut up about what I believe for fear of being offensive, or argue myself into deciding that God's Word was wrong on this issue because it doesn't accord with secular society's contemporary wisdom, then I would be letting people sleepwalk into Hell.  Which is the precise opposite of love.  Sometimes the person who loves most is not the person who tells the other person just what the other person wants to hear.

[Wahoo Redux]

Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.

Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.

And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?

I'm suggesting they should as much as possible try to avoid endorsements (explicit or implicit) of viewpoints that are not widely-held. (The majority of people in society rarely hold extreme views from either end of the political spectrum.) They should be like the ideal moderator of a debate; one who may hold opinions, even strong ones, but who places the value of open enquiry above their personal preferences for the performance of their duty. So, for example, I'd avoid having the creationist speak at the library, and I'd avoid Richard Dawkins basically saying organized religion is for idiots. Both of those will produce animosity rather than community spirit.
So if that means libraries seem somewhat timid in their stance, so be it. The thing they should not be timid about is supporting people studying, thinking, and making up their own minds.

Absolutely!  Who wants plurality in a free culture!? 

Who wants to hear marginalized voices when we can have "community spirit?" 

Who wants to hear or see of think about anything not in the mainstream!?

After all, there are no examples of cultures in which the majority do not hold extreme views...well, let's pretend American slavery did not exist, that will help...or North Korean cult culture...or the lives of LGBTQ people in, say, the '40s and '50s...and maybe it is okay since PEW found that only 64% of Americans currently are Christian and this percentage is quickly dropping; guess they will be in the minority sometime in the near future...

Let's just watch reruns of "Leave it to Beaver" and "My Three Dads" for cultural commentary and community spirit.

Good thinking, Marsh.

[dismalist]

Again, how are public readings in a separate room a problem? I seriously do not understand.

Depends how "separate" the room is, including how much publicity it gets in the main space. If Alex Jones was going to read in a "separate space", I don't want "SANDY HOOK WAS A HOAX!" posters in the main space directing people to it.

And neither do I. So, what would you propose? If libraries are owned by the public, are you suggesting they be for nothing more than accessing books and information?

I'm suggesting they should as much as possible try to avoid endorsements (explicit or implicit) of viewpoints that are not widely-held. (The majority of people in society rarely hold extreme views from either end of the political spectrum.) They should be like the ideal moderator of a debate; one who may hold opinions, even strong ones, but who places the value of open enquiry above their personal preferences for the performance of their duty. So, for example, I'd avoid having the creationist speak at the library, and I'd avoid Richard Dawkins basically saying organized religion is for idiots. Both of those will produce animosity rather than community spirit.
So if that means libraries seem somewhat timid in their stance, so be it. The thing they should not be timid about is supporting people studying, thinking, and making up their own minds.

This is kind of what I was trying to get at.  Libraries have a lot of different kinds of groups--often very different kinds of groups--competing to use and influence them.  Things that one group may consider entirely unexceptionable can totally offend and put off another group.  A good librarian tries hard not to write off or give offense to any of them.  It's not just a matter of not censoring particular groups.  It's also a matter of bending over backwards at times to avoid looking like you're playing favorites.

For example, our library doesn't allow religious or political groups of any kind to use our community room facilities for meetings. Period.  It's so difficult to keep from looking to one group like you're favoring another one over them that it's best to play it really safe.  Most libraries I've seen don't welcome religious meetings either, or let religious groups distribute literature through the library, or put up displays celebrating particular religious groups.  At our library we let church groups post occasional flyers for upcoming events alongside other event flyers on the bulletin board, and put an occasional donated bible on the free table among all our secular free books, and that's it.  If we were to then start putting up displays highlighting LBG++ materials and promoting Pride Week, hosting drag queen story hours and the like, then a lot of members of our community would assume that we were taking sides and trying to promote these things.  And, again, they'd feel offended, they'd be concerned about what else their children might be exposed to, and we'd have burned our bridges with a large segment of our community.

There's a sense in which librarians have to try to keep the peace--which is becoming more and more challenging all the time.  We don't censor books here, but we censor ourselves quite a bit when dealing with the public.  Sometimes it does mean we look timid, as marshy says.  Maybe state legislatures and message-board posters and the ALA looking in from outside don't agree with our choices.  But we're the ones on the ground who know our communities, and that should count for something when trying to figure out how to negotiate the minefields of today.  It behooves us to do so with more caution than some librarians I can think of have shown.

I very much appreciate the spirit of these comments. This is exactly what I had in mind. If every library behaved accordingly, I'm sure that there would be lots of variety in libraries across space, with some or many allowing religion, politics, or LBG  material, but not necessarily all.

How to induce librarians to behave this way is an entirely different matter.

[Anselm]

The elephant in the room is that libraries are now culling vast amounts of their collection since they think we are all going to digital formats now.

[Wahoo Redux]

This is kind of what I was trying to get at.  Libraries have a lot of different kinds of groups--often very different kinds of groups--competing to use and influence them.  Things that one group may consider entirely unexceptionable can totally offend and put off another group.  A good librarian tries hard not to write off or give offense to any of them.  It's not just a matter of not censoring particular groups.  It's also a matter of bending over backwards at times to avoid looking like you're playing favorites.

<snip>

But we're the ones on the ground who know our communities, and that should count for something when trying to figure out how to negotiate the minefields of today.  It behooves us to do so with more caution than some librarians I can think of have shown.

I had an argument once with my father----a super good dude from the Eisenhower era and a former Army captain----who argued that "gays should not be in the military because they get beaten up."  My dad was also a lawyer who believed in the law as if it were a religion, so when I asked him, "You mean you banish the victim of the assault and not the perpetrator?" he sputtered for a bit.

He said something along the lines of, "No, charge the guy who started the fight."

"But you still are punishing the guy who got beaten up because he is gay?"

Dad didn't want to argue this point (he did have a bit of a temper and did not like to be challenged).

Then I remember when we visited family on the east coast.  My parents, who wanted to expose their children to as much of the world as they could, took us to New York City where my father pointed to a couple of young men wearing necklaces and high-heels and said, "There they go.  A couple of little q----s in high-heels."  If someone had come up in front of my father and said, "There they go.  A couple of Puerto Ricans" (which I what I think the young men were) with the same level of disgust and disdain that my father's voice had carried when talking about "q----s," dad probably would have decked them (dad was also a former Green Beret and college linebacker). 

What happened to my dad was that, as his children of the Mtv generation got older, the fights over things like gay rights got louder----and this was very upsetting to both my good, honest, humane parents who struggled with the concept that we shouldn't just suffocate people who are not like us.

And then my dad had a couple of clients who were gay.  And a gay couple bravely (for our town) took a house down the street.   And then my dad accidentally went to a choir concert at the World Fair and found out it was the San Francisco Gay Men's choir.  "They were good," he said, somewhat chagrinned at having gone to the concert.  "They had ruffles at their wrists."

In short, it didn't take all that much for both my parents to think about their prejudices and, God bless them, confront them in their own minds and eventually perform complete 180s when they actually spent time thinking.

I would be sympathetic to your conundrum, apl, except that I know the yoke in the middle of this particular bruhaha. 

I asked a non-rhetorical question about where you would have stood on MLK and Civil Rights if this were, say, 1953.  I think you don't want to answer it.

Remember, libraries were once segregated at the hands of otherwise good, moral, religious people who did not want to ruffle the community spirit.

Unsung Heroes that Helped Desegregate Public Libraries

[ciao_yall]

The issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.

No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.

The whole point of the Constitution is to protect the minority. It allows people who have different ideas, religions, whatever, to be free to express themselves.

Laws were passed by the majority to oppress and humiliate minorities. So, making it illegal to marry someone of a different race, sleep with someone of the same sex, use contraception, sit in the front of the bus... all of these were challenged under the Constitution.

apl68 can believe whatever s/he wants about gays, Christianity or whatever. The Constitution protects his/her right to do so. However, the Constitution does not protect anyone's right to punish or oppress those who believe one way or the other.

Some have made the argument that simply allowing drag queens in the daylight, saying "Happy Holidays," or the mere discussion of science or history is oppressive to THEM.

They are welcome to make the argument. It doesn't mean anyone has to agree with it. And it doesn't mean that the harm caused by closeting drag queens, slapping anyone who says "Happy Holidays," or avoiding any discussion in school besides the alphabet (someone spelled out c-r-i-t-i-c-a-l r-a-c-e t-h-e-o-r-y!) and arithmetic (algebra was invented by Muslims!) should offset the harm caused by someone who is troubled by something they saw and heard.

[Wahoo Redux]

I gather from the above that you believe that I consider LGB people morally inferior and and Christians morally superior.  Which I never said, nor do I believe.  I don't believe that gay people are "worse" people than anybody else, and I don't believe that Christians are "better" people than anybody else. 

No.

I think you are using the Bible to justify prejudice.

And you may not mean to privilege Christianity over anybody else, but that is what you enact whether you mean to or not.

...striving to follow a higher standard than the world around us sets. 

Like, say, overcoming one of the oldest prejudices on the planet?

That means striving to avoid things like envy, greed, anger, hatred, substance abuse, and sexual immorality in all its forms. 

Guess Wall Street and most college students are out.

But that's great for you.  Now, leave the rest of the world alone.

...but doesn't seem to care much about love, joy, peace, etc. 

I do not see any of these in your belief system.

The unapologetic practice of such things is a sign that a person is lost and in danger of being condemned by God in eternity.  We don't want to see that happen to people, nor do we want to see other people encouraged to engage in such practices as well.  We want to warn them that they need to change their lives--just like everybody, in some way or another, needs to change.

Fine.  Talk all you want.  But leave the supernatural out of policy and law.

Here's what my heart tells me about gay people.  If they insist on practicing the lifestyles that they feel the desire to practice, then that is a sign that they will go to Hell.   

Ditto the above, please.

You know that the word and to an extent the concept of "Hell" comes from cross-cultural fertilization with Norse mythology, right?

Sometimes the person who loves most is not the person who tells the other person just what the other person wants to hear.

I love you and other Christians the most, apl.

[dismalist]

The issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.

No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.

The whole point of the Constitution is to protect the minority. It allows people who have different ideas, religions, whatever, to be free to express themselves.

Laws were passed by the majority to oppress and humiliate minorities. So, making it illegal to marry someone of a different race, sleep with someone of the same sex, use contraception, sit in the front of the bus... all of these were challenged under the Constitution.

...

There is no disagreement about the evils of majoritarianism. But the smaller the polity, the more homogeneous the population, and the less dangerous majoritarianism is.

In the context of this thread, none of this would be a special problem if there weren't public libraries. Privately owned bookstores have to decide what to stock, too. Their goal is to make profits. Stocking some books in some communities would drive away some customers, so those books do not get stocked. The challenge is to find a public analogue to this private process. Majoritarianism in small communities would come close because there are lots of different small communities [lots of different libraries].

Minorities cannot have the right to have their favorite books stocked everywhere, for that would drive away other clients, depriving them of their rights while they are paying for the books. But minorities could easily get the right to have their favorite books stocked in some or many places.

[Wahoo Redux]

Minorities cannot have the right to have their favorite books stocked everywhere, for that would drive away other clients, depriving them of their rights while they are paying for the books. But minorities could easily get the right to have their favorite books stocked in some or many places.

Does that actually make sense, Big-D?

If the "other clients" are soooooooo delicate that a book drives them away, let them stay on their farms.  That is their choice to have such incredibly fragile belief systems.

No library in the world forces you to take out books you don't want to read.

[dismalist]

Minorities cannot have the right to have their favorite books stocked everywhere, for that would drive away other clients, depriving them of their rights while they are paying for the books. But minorities could easily get the right to have their favorite books stocked in some or many places.

Does that actually make sense, Big-D?

If the "other clients" are soooooooo delicate that a book drives them away, let them stay on their farms.  That is their choice to have such incredibly fragile belief systems.

No library in the world forces you to take out books you don't want to read.

That's exactly what we're arguing about!

One extreme of property right leads to the delicates staying on the farm. [Perhaps they don't even want to see the books at issue.]  The other leads to the indelicates forced to buy their own library! How do we decide between these property rights regimes? Politically. Locally majoritarian.

The local part ensures that there will be variety, like with privately owned bookstores.

Fundamentally, all this is a problem only because people differ in their tastes. How do we live together in peace? Only if there is choice. And that is feasible for public libraries, at least over space. Hell, bigger places have more than one library!