Libraries and the Culture Wars

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

Ha!  You and Marshy have the same thesis:  "We must have choice!  Therefore only the majority can have books in the library!"

You prose is confusing, my friend, and your thinking inaccurate. 

If you cannot stand the marketplace of ideas, indeed, stay on the farm.  Just don't expect the rest of us to tiptoe around your tender feelings.

[dismalist]

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.

Ha!  You and Marshy have the same thesis:  "We must have choice!  Therefore only the majority can have books in the library!"

You prose is confusing, my friend, and your thinking inaccurate. 

If you cannot stand the marketplace of ideas, indeed, stay on the farm.  Just don't expect the rest of us to tiptoe around your tender feelings.

No, you don't follow the argument, at all. Your use of "majority" in the singular proves it.

[jimbogumbo]

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. 

I appreciate your thoughts, and the difficulties you will inevitably have in the job. My sister was a head librarian in two cities prior to going back to complete a doctorate.

I am surprised about your position re political groups. How do you decide what is political versus discussion? It's easy if it's party affiliated, but for example, what if it has to do with abolishing the income tax in favor of a consumption tax? Would that kind of lecture/discussion be allowed.

Also, the favoritism issue you describe wouldn't (in my mind) be as big an issue in larger cities. Do you think that's on target?

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

Ha!  You and Marshy have the same thesis:  "We must have choice!  Therefore only the majority can have books in the library!"

You prose is confusing, my friend, and your thinking inaccurate. 

If you cannot stand the marketplace of ideas, indeed, stay on the farm.  Just don't expect the rest of us to tiptoe around your tender feelings.

No, you don't follow the argument, at all. Your use of "majority" in the singular proves it.

No, I follow.

I know a bit about indelicates' communities, having grown up in one. 

Sorry Marshman, but your wife will not be allowed in the public library, being a minority...or maybe she will be okay if----as apl suggests----she does not draw attention to herself or her own personal beliefs, and she will not find books by any of the Obamas or Native American poets because, you know, the local majority will be offended and feel forced to purchase their own safe space without all this upsetting difference of belief and opinion.

At the same time, since we are worried about local majoritism, apl and kat might find a few books (with black covers, of course, so no one is offput and therefore cannot use the library) on fundamental Christianity (unless, of course, it is a book that condemns fundamental Christianity) at the Portland, Oregon public library.

In the end, what we have are a series of communities with radically different, monolithic, monomaniacal, and yet unchallenged belief systems in play.  But, you know, these folks are paying  for their own books in a public entity just like they are paying for a movie ticket, and therefore...

But wait.  Didn't the PEW Research Center find that a solid majority of Americans of both parties (70% actually) accept homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.  Why, yes!  Yes they did.  This is a fact that made our friend kay16 so uncomfortable that hu simply decided hu didn't believe it.  And the kids are all sorts of onboard with LGBTQ issues----we'll only be worried about this particular controversy for a short while, actually.

Our problem is solved!  Now we just have to remember that the frothing, blustering bigots are in the minority (and we should probably also remember that communities are part of the greater whole that we call a "country") and therefore we can ignore them.  Let them find a nice, safe go-go bar to vent their heterosexuality in and all's good.

[dismalist]

In the end, what we have are a series of communities with radically different, monolithic, monomaniacal, and yet unchallenged belief systems in play. 

Ah, the library as agitprop  center! :-)

[Kron3007]

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.

The percentage of gay people is likely the same in a small town as it is in a large city, so in this particular example they are not more homogeneous.  However, in a small town, I suspect the LGB population would be less inclined to advocate for their interests for a variety of reasons.  In this particular case, I think small towns operating on their own (decentralized) would be more likely to develop discriminatory policies against LGBT.

[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.

The percentage of gay people is likely the same in a small town as it is in a large city, so in this particular example they are not more homogeneous.  However, in a small town, I suspect the LGB population would be less inclined to advocate for their interests for a variety of reasons.  In this particular case, I think small towns operating on their own (decentralized) would be more likely to develop discriminatory policies against LGBT.

The distribution of the LGB population is a factual question. Here are some data cited by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States The more local data is further down. Shares of LGB people in the population do differ across space.

Anyway, I don't think that the share of LGB people in any library community matters so much for decision making as their neighbors' sympathy for their wishes for the library. I would guess that that is overwhelming in at least some places, probably many, and yes, absent in other places, with some distribution in between.

[apl68]

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. 

I appreciate your thoughts, and the difficulties you will inevitably have in the job. My sister was a head librarian in two cities prior to going back to complete a doctorate.

I am surprised about your position re political groups. How do you decide what is political versus discussion? It's easy if it's party affiliated, but for example, what if it has to do with abolishing the income tax in favor of a consumption tax? Would that kind of lecture/discussion be allowed.

Also, the favoritism issue you describe wouldn't (in my mind) be as big an issue in larger cities. Do you think that's on target?

Larger systems tend to have more leeway in some ways, yes.  They've also often got multiple branches where they can experiment with different sorts of offerings in different places.

We've generally understood "political" as relating to particular parties or candidates.  But we would not encourage activist groups of any sort to use the meeting room (People having informal meetings around the building in small groups is another matter.  As long as you're not making a lot of noise or otherwise creating disruption, you can meet to talk about pretty much anything you'd like around here).  Activism tends to end up with a strong partisan component in today's environment anyway.

Requests of this sort have been very, very rare over the years at our library.  The last one to date was a group wanting to hold a protest meeting regarding COVID rules during a period in the pandemic when those were still widely in force.  When they found out that we were going to make them follow COVID rules to use our premises, they decided they weren't interested in using them after all.

[apl68]

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

I didn't realize that was a non-rhetorical question.  To be honest, I kind of assumed from the tone of your responses that it was rhetorical.

I have wondered sometimes what I would have done if I had lived in the Civil Rights era--and other times and places too, for that matter.  One reason I've always been a fan of the study of history is that it can prompt reflection of that sort.

Based on what I know of actual Christians of that generation--serious Christians, not just people who went to church because it was the expected thing--I suspect I would have followed a trajectory something like this:  Initially I would likely have regarded Dr. King and other advocates for civil rights with some suspicion.  Maybe they had good intentions, maybe they were more like dangerous rabble-rousers.  And anyway, what were they so up-in-arms about?  Weren't birds of a feather better off flocking together?

Then I would have started having Christian leaders whom I trusted pointing out that the New Testament never said anything to justify racial segregation.  It says pretty explicitly that God is no respecter of persons.  All are sinners alike, and all who come to Jesus are brothers and sisters in Christ alike.  Maybe the Damascus Road moment would have been Billy Graham desegregating his evangelical crusades, at a time when that would have been a major statement.  And pointing out that segregating black people was ultimately all due to pride, and that our pride, as white southerners, was going to lead us to Hell if we didn't forsake it.  It would have taken some time, but eventually I would have gone along with desegregation, accepted desegregated schools for my children without demur--as my parents and the parents of my white friends did when the time came--and gotten used to living in a desegregated community.  Interracial marriage would probably have taken longer to accept, but eventually I'd realize that objections to this were unbiblical as well.  Eventually perhaps I'd be a member of a church, such as the one I in fact attend now, with both black and white members.  I'd pray alongside black friends and discuss spiritual matters with them, as I have in fact been doing for many years. 

That's my answer to your counterfactual.  I can't really know, of course, because if I'd lived then I wouldn't exactly be me.  I'm as much a product of my own time and place as anybody else.  I do know that older white Christians I know who actually did live through that era went through those sorts of things, and did a lot of soul-searching and repentance.  With some of them it is still an imperfect work in progress.

Your anecdote about your father's journey to enlightenment suggests that you think that I've never really met or interacted with any gay people.  I've been doing so for decades, with a number of different individuals.  I've also read some nonfiction and fiction from gay authors and perspectives, such as Less, by Andrew Sean Greer.  One or two of the gay people I've gotten to know struck me as kind of jerks.  Most seemed pretty easy to get along with, like most people I've met in general.  Some I've had quite friendly relations with.  I've never tried to hide what I believe from them.  I guess you could say that we agreed to disagree. 

Overall I've found gay people to be a fair cross-section of humanity.  No matter how one sections them, humans are in need of redemption.  All of us are.  We do in some ways differ in what we need to be redeemed from.  Maybe it's our sexuality.  Maybe it's a general self-centeredness.  Maybe it's our anger with God because he didn't make the world and our lives like we wanted them to be, since we obviously know better than God.  I've personally found myself in disagreement with God on each of the above at times, by the way.  Then I remember that I'm only one human being, and not a particularly notable one at that, and that God is the Creator of the universe, for whom billions of years is like only a few days.  And I realize that I'm surely not the one in the right here, so I'd best admit that and ask God to help me learn to do things his way.  That's what being a Christian involves.  I have to do it every day.  And encourage others to consider doing the same.

[ciao_yall]

The distribution of the LGB population is a factual question. Here are some data cited by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States The more local data is further down. Shares of out LGB people in the population do differ across space.

There. FTFY.

Anyway, I don't think that the share of LGB people in any library community matters so much for decision making as their neighbors' sympathy for their wishes for the library. I would guess that that is overwhelming in at least some places, probably many, and yes, absent in other places, with some distribution in between.

Research shows that the more likely one is to know someone who is LGBT, they are more likely to support LGBT rights.

So, yes, representation matters.

The right to be out matters.

The right to see books that provide another perspective does matter.

Apl68 you remind me of one of my former students. She was troubled because she ended up in an LBGTQ Studies class and felt their perspective conflicted with her Christian beliefs. What I told her was that her job, in the class, was not to agree or disagree with them. Her job was to listen to what they had to say about themselves, and show that she at least heard them. After the class was over, if she still felt the same way, well, that was fine.

That said, if someone made it clear to me they believed I was going to Hell, I might be a bit of a jerk to them.

[Wahoo Redux]

I appreciate the honest and thoughtful response, apl. 

I too like to think that I would have risen to the new tide of civil rights.  Probably neither of us would, or if we did, it would be a very qualified awakening.

Which leads me to wonder: there are different evaluations of scripture which come to a different perspective on the subject of homosexuality.  There are Christians who, like Billy Graham desegregating his flock, openly accept homosexuality as Biblically endorsed, or at least not Biblically condemned.  The view you espouse is not the only one.  For instance:

https://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality

https://reformationproject.org/biblical-case/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/18/most-u-s-christian-groups-grow-more-accepting-of-homosexuality/

Have you dealt with these or similar ideas?  Or are your ideas circumscribed by your particular congregation?

My father's story is a story about a guy who had been taught that homosexuality was a mental illness but who actually reevaluated his beliefs based on experiences in this world.

[Wahoo Redux]

In the end, what we have are a series of communities with radically different, monolithic, monomaniacal, and yet unchallenged belief systems in play. 

Ah, the library as agitprop  center! :-)

Yes, I noticed you were using the library as an agitprop.  Why?

And the library, as someone has pointed out, is slowly going digital.  The library is really just a proxy for the culture as a whole.

[dismalist]

The distribution of the LGB population is a factual question. Here are some data cited by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States The more local data is further down. Shares of out LGB people in the population do differ across space.

There. FTFY.

Anyway, I don't think that the share of LGB people in any library community matters so much for decision making as their neighbors' sympathy for their wishes for the library. I would guess that that is overwhelming in at least some places, probably many, and yes, absent in other places, with some distribution in between.

Research shows that the more likely one is to know someone who is LGBT, they are more likely to support LGBT rights.

So, yes, representation matters.

The right to be out matters.

The right to see books that provide another perspective does matter.

...

Not much disagreement here. Factually, the data come from surveys, which are anonymous, so out shouldn't matter much. But that's not the point of anything. It's the empathy of neighbors that matters, as I said.

A right to be out exists already. How that right is received depends on our fellows. These do exist. Getting along with people is something that all of us have to, or have had to, learn.

The right to see books cannot be unlimited unless one pays for the books oneself. I cannot ask the public to finance my own public library, given my own tastes that diverge widely from the community in which I live.

Since this is about public  libraries, the ability to use some or many public libraries under a highly decentralized decision making system is a good deal for everybody on average in my estimation. That is my political value judgement. I'd much prefer a market for libraries, yielding much more variety, but that won't happen.

[ciao_yall]

Not much disagreement here. Factually, the data come from surveys, which are anonymous, so out shouldn't matter much. But that's not the point of anything. It's the empathy of neighbors that matters, as I said.

A right to be out exists already. How that right is received depends on our fellows. These do exist. Getting along with people is something that all of us have to, or have had to, learn.

The right to see books cannot be unlimited unless one pays for the books oneself. I cannot ask the public to finance my own public library, given my own tastes that diverge widely from the community in which I live.

Since this is about public  libraries, the ability to use some or many public libraries under a highly decentralized decision making system is a good deal for everybody on average in my estimation. That is my political value judgement. I'd much prefer a market for libraries, yielding much more variety, but that won't happen.

But who is responsible? Is it the responsibility of a person to hide whatever aspects of their identity might face disagreement? Or is it the responsibility of the person who has disagreements to behave in a civil manner?

France is an interesting example with the Muslim population. The French want to be officially secular - liberte, egalite, fraternite and all of that. So... if a Muslim chooses to wear a hijab or a burkini, and she is harassed, it is considered her fault for showing everyone she is Muslim and opening herself up to criticism.

The French make the excuse that wearing Christian symbols is also a concern so they are not discriminating. Still, if someone wearing a rosary were harassed for wearing it, who would be considered the guilty party?

[Wahoo Redux]

Is it the responsibility of a person to hide whatever aspects of their identity might face disagreement? Or is it the responsibility of the person who has disagreements to behave in a civil manner?

Still, if someone wearing a rosary were harassed for wearing it, who would be considered the guilty party?

Big-D will sidestep this, probably through a little pseudo-jargon and circular phrasing.

The person who disagrees must be civil.

The person who harasses the Catholic is the guilty party.

It's pretty simple, really.