Unable to Book Ban,Library is defunded

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

If you have a 50/50 split, you should be extremely careful not to antagonize the half of your population. Libraries funded by municipalities have no right to push any agenda or have a political position.

Your own argument suggests then that NOTHING should be banned. Absence of material IS a political position in and of itself if the choice was a conscious one.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by meeera

Providing access to books for kids isn't using a weapon. Very surprised to hear this in a forum about reading and books. The one thing I hope we can all agree on is that reading is great, there should be more of it, and everyone deserves access to stories and information.

Controlling access to knowledge is a weapon. Perhaps this issue has received enough publicity and provoked enough outrage that money could be raised to fund a private library in this community. Competing libraries may the the future of a polarized nation.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by jhowell

Controlling access to knowledge is a weapon. Perhaps this issue has received enough publicity and provoked enough outrage that money could be raised to fund a private library in this community. Competing libraries may the the future of a polarized nation.

That sounds an awfully lot like "separate but equal" except you are asking the marginalized community to fund their own library...

[meeera]

Originally Posted by jhowell

Controlling access to knowledge is a weapon.

Do you have some evidence that the librarians were doing this "controlling"? Bothsidesing doesn't work terribly well when one side wants to use governmental controls to ban books and the other ... doesn't.

ETA: and defunding libraries is not only about book access. Libraries are often a refuge and information/resource hub for many many people in various sorts of straits and situations - everything from homelessness and family violence to seniors learning how to use tech to connect with the world.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

That sounds an awfully lot like "separate but equal" except you are asking the marginalized community to fund their own library...

I am writing about what I believe will happen not what I want. I personally would prefer schools and libraries to be funded and controlled by a liberal federal government. I just don’t believe that will happen in my lifetime.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jhowell

In my youth I spent a lot of time in my local library. It makes me sad that this library is being used by both sides as a weapon in a fight over social issues.

It's hateful people who want to control what others can/cannot do and have access to.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by meeera

Do you have some evidence that the librarians were doing this "controlling"? Bothsidesing doesn't work terribly well when one side wants to ban books and the other ... doesn't.

I am going by the article that was linked in the first post. By refusing to remove a controversial book from circulation the librarians took a side on a social issue. I happen to agree with them, but it was still taking a side. If it had been a book promoting violent white nationalism or pedophilia I would have agreed with those who felt that it did not belong in a public library.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by jhowell

In my youth I spent a lot of time in my local library. It makes me sad that this library is being used by both sides as a weapon in a fight over social issues.

I don't see this as a 'both sides' issue.

Why are books with LGBT themes inherently on one side? If the same people also started demanding books featuring peanut butter be banned, would that make cook books suddenly liberal? If those people wanted books on Malcolm X banned, would you support the libraries removing his autobiography?

There is one side who was whipped up with tales conflating LGBT people with pedophiles and those whipped up people were set loose on their local libraries and school boards.

In the end, the library was defunded over 90 books out of 67,000. That is 0.134%. I would wager that those 90 books have not been read (or even heard of) by the people supporting the defunding of the library. I would also wager that the proportion of LGBT citizens in Jamestown, MI is over 1%. Surely they are entitled to have books they feel reflect their life experiences?

When it comes down to it, poor GenderQueer is being used for scare mongering. It was in the adult section, not the children's section to begin with. Is GenderQueer (which I actually read before it became a scapegoat) really any worse or more explicit than books by Henry Miller, E.L. James, Anaïs Nin, Zane or even Anne Rice/Anne Rampling?

And even so, the librarians moved it 'under the counter' as if it were pornography. But that wasn't good enough.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

If you have a 50/50 split, you should be extremely careful not to antagonize the half of your population. Libraries funded by municipalities have no right to push any agenda or have a political position.

By refusing to ban certain books that only a portion of the community disagrees with for political reasons, that IS refusing to push an agenda or political position. It's saying we have the books available for both sides and refuse to take sides.

Sad article and situation.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

History is filled with people voting for terrible things so I’m really confused why anyone would use the excuse of “well people voted for it” as if that makes everything ok.

What alternative are you advocating then? If you don't want the people who pay for the library to be able to decide what the library does, then who gets to decide?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by haertig

What alternative are you advocating then? If you don't want the people who pay for the library to be able to decide what the library does, then who gets to decide?

How about the people they hired to run the library?

What you are suggesting is that every time a panicky and ill-informed parent comes running in sweating about a book they heard an opinion on, but have not yet read (or even seen), be banned, that book must immediately be removed.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by jhowell

I am going by the article that was linked in the first post. By refusing to remove a controversial book from circulation the librarians took a side on a social issue. I happen to agree with them, but it was still taking a side. If it had been a book promoting violent white nationalism or pedophilia I would have agreed with those who felt that it did not belong in a public library.

There are well documented facts that are controversial because they are not consistant with the nation's self-image. Banning educational systems from presenting these facts only serves to preserve false perceptions that lead to unwarranted bias that helps perpetuate poverty, misery, bad health, and premaure death.

[Aleron Ives]

Originally Posted by meeera

I don't understand this comment. What do you mean?

I assume the point is that since libraries are publicly funded, they should listen to the demands of constituents, lest they be punished with reduced budgets.

It's a short-sighted approach, but it is somewhat true. If librarians are going to stand up for free speech and freedom of information principles (which they should), some of them are going to get punished by single-minded voters.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

If you have a 50/50 split, you should be extremely careful not to antagonize the half of your population. Libraries funded by municipalities have no right to push any agenda or have a political position.

Sorry, "LGBT people exist" is not a political position.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

Sorry, "LGBT people exist" is not a political position.

My existence thanks you.