Unable to Book Ban,Library is defunded

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Okay, you have a point, although the first vote (I believe) was 67% to 33%, so one of the two votes was definitely a strong majority. (And 56% to 44% is not that weak of a majority either.)

That 56/44 split gets weaker in terms of what the library could have done to change it as some part of the 56 is undoubtedly libertarian voters who just don’t want to pay taxes period. And sure they are entitled to their votes, but one can’t argue the library could have done anything to change those votes. Which is what’s being argued with the removal of books some found objectionable.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Hopefully the library purges the books that majority wants and continues to serve those who voted to keep them funded. Clearly those who voted to defund feel they can survive without so no need to consider their desires now. Which goes for all library services, not just books.

I doubt they will. Most public servants now believe they are the public masters and think their decisions trump the decisions of the people who pay them. It's a form of elitism. Besides, the situation is really not so dire for them as the hyperbolic and breathless claims would indicate. They already have enough to last close to three more years (via GoFundMe, their reserves, and the fact that the current funding lasts through the first quarter of 2023) — and apparently there's another GoFundMe campaign in progress so all the wringing of hands is probably unneeded. They'll probably get their funding, they just won't be able to force their voters to provide it.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

That 56/44 split gets weaker in terms of what the library could have done to change it as some part of the 56 is undoubtedly libertarian voters who just don’t want to pay taxes period. And sure they are entitled to their votes, but one can’t argue the library could have done anything to change those votes. Which is what’s being argued with the removal of books some found objectionable.

Weak or strong and for whatever reason, it's still the majority. Apparently they had no trouble getting a sizable majority during the last "millage" vote — despite the libertarians. There's also a sizable number of voters who automatically vote for all bond issues and, I'm guessing, they're a larger percentage than those who automatically vote against them.

[Aleron Ives]

Originally Posted by rcentros

The publicly funded library chose to ignore the majority of the town's voters and they lost their funding. That's called democracy.

I don't know much about library oversight, but wouldn't it make more sense for the city/county to fire the librarian(s) than to defund the entire library? Taxpayers are upset with the actions of particular library employees, not the library itself.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Weak or strong and for whatever reason, it's still the majority. Apparently they had no trouble getting a sizable majority during the last "millage" vote — despite the libertarians. There's also a sizable number of voters who automatically vote for all bond issues and, I'm guessing, they're a larger percentage than those who automatically vote against them.

And here we go back to my original post in this topic, history is filled with examples of bad things being voted for by people. Rushing to the defense of something with cries of “it was voted for so it’s ok” just seem to be intentionally ignorant of our history.

As Zod has pointed out the books in question make up less than 1 percent of the books in the library.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by Aleron Ives

...wouldn't it make more sense for the city/county to fire the librarian(s) than to defund the entire library?

I mentioned this in a previous post, as did at least one other. We don't know that they DIDN'T try this. That's where the sometimes unreliable and often biased news media comes into play. We don't necessarily know the whole story.

This whole thing could be about the taxpayers not backing a bond initiative, and nothing (or very little) to do with LGBT books. But someone is trying to spin a false intent on the taxpayer motivations per their personal agenda. We've seen that very thing happen in this thread. It would be a lot easier if we could trust the media. But we can't.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Aleron Ives

I don't know much about library oversight, but wouldn't it make more sense for the city/county to fire the librarian(s) than to defund the entire library? Taxpayers are upset with the actions of particular library employees, not the library itself.

It doesn't look like the people had any other leverage. The Library Director did quit, the (then) acting director didn't change anything about this. As I mentioned in another post, bureaucrats no longer answer to the people. Now the ACLU "warns" that book banning in Michigan "must be stopped." So, is the ACLU going to try force the residents to vote to fund the library now? How does that work?

I'm pretty sure this library is not going to close as it is already being financed by outside interests. So, I guess it's a win-win situation for Jamestown, Michigan.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

And here we go back to my original post in this topic, history is filled with examples of bad things being voted for by people. Rushing to the defense of something with cries of “it was voted for so it’s ok” just seem to be intentionally ignorant of our history.

As Zod has pointed out the books in question make up less than 1 percent of the books in the library.

Not voting for a bond issue to finance a library is not exactly voting for gulags. If people don't have the right to vote down unpopular tax proposals, what are voters free to do?

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by jhowell

One GoFundMe has closed after raising $264,535. The November 11 update gives the reason for the decision to close at that amount.

There is another campaign still open for those who may want to contribute to keeping this library open.

Does no one here see the irony in a public library needing to start a GoFundMe to stay open?

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

Does no one here see the irony in a public library needing to start a GoFundMe to stay open?

What I see are ideologues insisting their way is the only way, despite what their bosses (the people) want.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

What I see are ideologues insisting their way is the only way, despite what their bosses (the people) want.

Except not all and a relatively slim majority want it. Stop pretending like this was a 80/20 or even 70/30 split. The 45% who voted to keep the library are just as much the bosses as the 55% who voted against and 10% is a slim margin to hang a hat on any sort of mandate of the people.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by rcentros

What I see are ideologues insisting their way is the only way, despite what their bosses (the people) want.

"Ideologues" who are doing exactly what they are supposed to do - engage in best-practice professional librarianship according to their parent association's professional standards and guidelines.

All they are doing is providing a broad range of different books to cater to a diverse community. The people defunding them because of bigotry are the book-burners. (I'm not hand-waving about the motivation here - a friend of mine was heavily involved in the effort to save the library in Arkansas.)

Really did NOT think I'd be arguing, here, against people who think that professional librarian standards are a bad thing, and that libraries following them should be suppressed and defunded just because they're unlucky enough to be located within a community of bigots who wouldn't know what a "book" was if it hit them between the eyes.

So no, I don't think the general public should get a fine-grained say in what books should be suppressed by the public library system. Library members can _request_ certain books, absolutely, and have those requests considered by the librarians against their collections policy. But public library suppression?

This is like, I don't know, defunding a public hospital because they follow gold-standard medical care. Or some other public institution with professional standards. I'm struggling to come up with examples because of how unthinkable this would be in my country. Public library funding is considered a given by virtually the entire community, and not put up for public debate constantly. Defunding a public library would be like defunding a public school, or suburban rubbish collection, or something like that.

[Sarmat89]

Originally Posted by meeera

and that libraries following them should be suppressed and defunded just because they're unlucky enough to be located within a community of bigots

You cannot call more than a half of population 'bigots', it doesn't work this way. If a group of people finds a book offensive, they have a right to demand its removal.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by haertig

[edit] p.s. - For those prone to misconstruing intent, I will spoil some of the fun and tell you that the above was not a shot against ZodWallop. It was a joke about the news media. Sad that I have to explain this. [/edit]

I'm offended!

Sorry. I just couldn't help myself.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

You cannot call more than a half of population 'bigots', it doesn't work this way. If a group of people finds a book offensive, they have a right to demand its removal.

That's where we just fundamentally disagree. It's a public library. If there aren't books in it that groups find offensive, it's not doing its job. My public library has books I can truthfully say I personally wish were never written, that I vigorously disagree with, containing ideas I find absolutely vile. (I get the On Order emails: there are some real doozies.)

I've never once campaigned for them to get rid of them. And if I were doing the type of research on the topics they discuss that meant accessing even gross and completely wrongheaded published views on the topic, I'd want to have access to them through the library.

ETA: And yes as ZodWallop says we're not talking half of a population, we're talking half of the motivated small-community voters who turned out to vote on this particular issue. But "you can't call half a population bigots" - that's just nonsense. Bigotry is pretty widespread, and declaring that common bigotries aren't real bigotry because they're common just doesn't make any sense.

If you really want me to neutral it on up for you, I could just call them "anti-LGBTQIA+ people", or "queerphobes". Does that work?