Ok – for starters, just to be clear: bigotry and racism is always ugly, and is always repugnant and wrong. Violent acts because of those beliefs? Horrible, and illegal.
I’ll also say this – pretty much every library has ugly, repugnant, and wrong content in our library collections. For example, my library has Mein Kampf (it’s currently checked out).
Why bring this up? Because in light of recent events in Charlottesville and elsewhere, I’ve seen some of my library friends and colleagues talking about libraries NOT being neutral spaces.
Some of that’s been in conversations on Facebook. I get that those types of conversations are more personal, off-the-cuff, random thoughts rather than official organizational policy from a library. Gotta blow off steam somewhere, right?
But I’ve also seen more formal commentary that seems to also be advocating a “libraries are not neutral” viewpoint. Here’s one such example from R. David Lankes. Really smart dude, and I usually agree with him.
Here are two things he said in a recent blog post that I don’t completely agree with:
- “In Charlottesville, there is absolutely a need to acknowledge that racists are part of the community, but librarians should not be giving them an equal voice or justifying their beliefs.”
- “Shouldn’t libraries be place for all voices in the community? No. Libraries are not neutral microphones placed in a town square open to all comers.”
You should read the whole post, and the comments too. There’s a really good discussion there between David and Jamie LaRue (Director of the Office of Intellectual Freedom at the American Library Association).
I also just read Joseph Janes’ column in American Libraries magazine (Sept/Oct 2017, pg. 24). I found much more to agree with in his column. Joseph said this: “We fight in public for the rights of our patrons to read and think freely without fear of exposure, surveillance, or censure, as well as for open and equal access to a range of materials. We stand for the principle that government and public information shouldn’t depend on the whims of the moment.” The whole article’s good – find a copy and give it a read.
This isn’t easy to say because of current events, but I’m saying it anyway: As libraries and librarians, we are defenders of the First Amendment and of free speech. Even if we don’t always agree with that free speech.
This isn’t some weird idea of mine. It’s in our Library Bill of Rights. Some highlights:
- Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.
- A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
- Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.
I certainly agree with David about librarians not “justifying their beliefs.” That’s simply not our job. But I don’t necessarily agree when David says “librarians should not be giving them an equal voice” or the library not being a place for all voices in the community. That seems to be pretty much the opposite of our Library Bill of Rights.
I support the idea of libraries serving the whole community, and providing a neutral and trusted community space where ideas can be heard, discussed, and debated. Free speech is free speech, even if we don’t agree with that speech. That concept is pretty foundational to libraries.
I’m certainly not the only one working through these issues! Here’s what some other organizations have been saying:
- From the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t.”
- From the ACLU: “We fundamentally believe that our democracy will be better and stronger for engaging and hearing divergent views. Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground. Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it. Not all speech is morally equivalent, but the airing of hateful speech allows people of good will to confront the implications of such speech and reject bigotry, discrimination and hate. This contestation of values can only happen if the exchange of ideas is out in the open.”
- From the TorProject: “We are disgusted, angered, and appalled by everything these racists stand for and do. We feel this way any time the Tor network and software are used for vile purposes. But we can’t build free and open source tools that protect journalists, human rights activists, and ordinary people around the world if we also control who uses those tools. Tor is designed to defend human rights and privacy by preventing anyone from censoring things, even us.” They were talking about why they aren’t moving to block websites they don’t agree with (actually, why their software is designed to not let them do that).
Libraries need to support the whole community – not just the parts we like and agree with. We need to provide safe, neutral and open community spaces where ideas are shared, debated, etc. We need to actively support the First Amendment and the Library Bill of Rights, even when we don’t agree with certain ideas – in fact, even when we find some of those viewpoints appalling and ugly.
It’s one way we can help change our communities for good. I’m a strong believer in people, and in the idea that if really wrong ideas are voiced, the community will take notice, will speak up, and will help better the community. I’m seeing that in Topeka, and I think our library has been part of that change.
Thoughts? Please share… (and please keep it civil).
Image by John Nakamura Remy
On the other hand, Chris Bourg is so much more worth listening to than any of this “both sides” and “neutral” malarkey.
Thanks for the comment! I’m guessing you mean this post – https://chrisbourg.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/on-charlottesville/ . It’s a fine opinion. It’s also goes against the Library Bill of Rights. Doesn’t it?
I would also like to remind people about the ALA Code of Ethics –
We provide the highest level of service to all library
users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable
service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and
courteous responses to all requests.
We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.
We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality
with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted,
borrowed, acquired or transmitted.
We respect intellectual property rights and advocate balance between the interests of information users and rights holders.
We treat co-workers and other colleagues with respect, fairness,
and good faith, and advocate conditions of employment that safeguard the
rights and welfare of all employees of our institutions.
We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions.
We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional
duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair
representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of
access to their information resources.
We strive for excellence in the profession by maintaining and
enhancing our own knowledge and skills, by encouraging the professional
development of co-workers, and by fostering the aspirations of potential
members of the profession.
Adopted at the 1939 Midwinter Meeting by the ALA Council; amended June 30, 1981; June 28, 1995; and January 22, 2008.
I think I understand your argument. On the other hand, supporting people who seek to eradicate other populations, and “supporting the whole community”, are two opposing actions.
Or, put another way, if a library hosts groups who actively seek to harm others, whose platform is ultimately the death or subjugation of others, then that library isn’t “safe” for vulnerable people in your community. You have the right to invite all the white supremacists and Nazis you want, but I’m staying far away from your building if you do.
Then the library bill of rights needs to be re-worked, doesn’t it?
It’s not so hard to write a policy that says “all members of the community are welcome, thus any group that excludes based on race, sex, [etc.] may not use the facilities.”
I believe your argument is effective. Having said that, the logistics of collection management reflect community VALUE. Until people are really willing to own bigotry and race hate as a value, where is this need for balance, equal representation? What we should not do most is try to emulate the hidden and bold hypocrisy of beliefs, smoke screens, of which we cannot gain a factual pulse check. The discussion eludes reality because most will not readily identify as “white nationalists”. those who, regardless of admitting hate, take a stand about their belief that it is rational to manage ethnic purity. Other than the internet, the body of published contemporary literature does not reflect the discourse. The debate is a sound academic one but, assuming your logic is sound, what then to do with views that are not palatable enough to gain an audience for publishing? This is a bit of trying to introduce and justify rationality where no basis of rationality exists and then further make it available. I have seen few books,if ever, on the subject of justifying this. What then would be the academic merits of its writer? Shouldn’t we show the same concern for scholastic credibility we do other works. These are the earmarks of why we don’t yield to any fever pitch. Where is the place of propaganda in a library?
Thanks for adding this!
I agree.
If libraries are supposed to be free and *welcoming* places for all (emphasis mine), and a group whose stated purpose is to support the doctrine of white supremacy, which at it’s foundation is a very unwelcoming ideology, I fail to understand why a discussion why people who espouse this ideology are unwelcome in public spaces. This isn’t a time for theory, not when people are being killed.
I absolutely agree with the article, free speech means free for everybody. I’m struggling with how we allow use without appearing to support/condone. It’s easier to say, “Yes, patrons should have access to Mein Kampf because it is a revolting yet important part of history.” than “Yes, we should host a vile neo Nazi speaker who could change the climate of our community, be a flashpoint for violence and alienate our patrons.” Both could be used to learn more about something one doesn’t agree with or to bolster one’s established favorable views but having the book on the shelf is much less threatening to those being attacked than having the speaker on the podium.
That’s an important difference to point out. Thanks!
Nope. As Cecily noted, you cannot make white supremacists welcome in a
space without
simultaneously making their would-be victims unwelcome. If a library
chooses to be a space that welcomes and supports racist and nazi
organizations, then it is categorically not a space which welcomes and
supports people of color,
Jews, Muslims, and many other groups, both as groups and as
individuals. Probably more so as individuals.
The choice is not whether
to exclude someone, nor who to welcome–the choice is *who are you
excluding when you welcome this group?*
So, per the line you
quote from the Library Bill of Rights, that “a person’s right to use a
library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age,
background, or views”, we are practically obliged to deny our spaces to
white supremacist and similar violent organizations. To do otherwise
would deny and abridge the rights of individuals to feel safe using the
library, solely because of the individuals’ origin, background, or views. (I have not heard any suggestion of policing individual patron’s beliefs in order to keep out white supremacists; only denying a platform to hate groups.)
I may have experience with one of these supremacist groups using a library I worked at as a meeting space. The library cannot say no. Using the space in no way means the library supports the beliefs of the group. The library cannot play thought police.
This is exactly what I’m trying to figure out. Can we allow use without welcoming and supporting? Can we be a platform where repugnant views are aired outside of their bubble of support and refuted by the wider community? I don’t know how many minds can be changed in this way, but I’m wondering if we can successfully apply the “sunlight is the best disinfectant” method, rather than allowing this stuff to fester unchecked on the internet.
David, I posted a comment earlier, neither of which was truly intended to promote a preferential point of view but it probably does get placed into an intelligent filter. It does not point out other specifics in ALA Code but it does speak indirectly to them. I believe it is an
Thanks for sharing – I appreciate it.
Thanks for the comment – good thoughts.
Thank you. For what it is worth, it is a difficult line to hold but I also believe we have abdicated our role in many public libraries as direct advocates for civic discourse because many really are afraid to be the radical voices we say we are. That means a certain level of commitment that can often be risky or volatile and unknown for municipal livelihoods as well.
With respect to racism, sunlight as a disinfectant has failed miserably. We don’t need more exposure to racism or other forms of bigotry, what we need is a concerted effort from community organizations to say “this is what we stand for, and you are not welcome as part of this community until and unless you are willing to uphold our standards.”
Cecily, this may not edify you at all. I worked in downtown Shreveport in the time of David Duke. My department was almost exclusively staffed with black friends and coworkers. The KKK was marching on the court house steps on weekends one block down. That may seem like a long time ago but it was the 90’s. I waited on a family of wealthy white nationalists who were perfectly mannered. Those people I worked with were some of my dearest friends and dearest people of all time. One of the most difficult things I had to do was make my peace with what they could make peace with themselves. Sadly, not all racists are violent. In fact, few who espouse the most dangerous and insidious speech are. I value your comment because we have to safeguard the possibility of violence somehow. The question becomes how? As much as I would like to disagree with David Lee’s logic, and would prefer a sanitized version of “freedom of speech”, I have to concur with him. This is a challenging and tough call. My emotion tells me, “No, hate speech should not be acceptable.” But my intelligence tells me that when we open that door to suppression, we are going to open a wide and revolving door as well, of which there are numerous quotations you already know of. I am deeply sympathetic to your entitled feelings and your points.
I’m sure you don’t need more exposure, but racism, itself, may need it. I’m thinking about those Charlottesville marchers who were singled out and vilified. Most of them were shocked that the wider world considered them bad people. After spending so much time only talking to each other, they really thought their views were quite reasonable. As a white woman living in a very white place, I am clear that I, and most of my neighbors, have a lot to learn about racism. I don’t know that having a Klan speaker come to the library would be the best way to address the issue but it might be the only way to get folks around here to think about it.
That’s how I’m thinking about it.
I think we have to first draw a distinction between individuals and groups. As was pointed out, we cannot thought police individuals. This is a bit like the censorship of materials debate. I think it is important to consider policy that speaks to civic and scholarly merit FIRST. Numerous court houses DO allow this expression and that is not welcoming either. I am sure that holding a racist meeting at the library isn’t going to garner favored library support or even the support of your library community but the policy the community creates around that support mission is what speaks to the community choices and responsibility alike. And, I am not saying we should allow them but, if we make an abridging exclusion, we must then counter-balance that somehow too, for instance, no religious or political meetings at all. That is how I see true equity of belief objectives. I think anything else exposes a level of predisposition to
Racism *is* violence. Whether physical, or emotional, it is a violent act born of the belief that white people are superior to all other non-white people. It’s past time to stop defending racists by talking about how “well-mannered” they are. My life – black lives, queer lives, trans lives – are not up for debate, and as long as non-marginalized people (read that as white people) continue to believe that they can explain away the actions of white racists, there will never be any common ground. If you consider this to be a tough call, or if you think that racists are really well-mannered yet misunderstood white people, then you are not as ‘deeply sympathetic’ to my feelings as you might believe, and neither is this policy of supposed ‘neutrality’.
Then have it at a church, or some other private place. If you are opening space in your library to a group of people whose very presence makes me feel unwelcome, invisible, and unimportant to the library, your organization can no longer call itself neutral. You have chosen sides, and in choosing, you have to get comfortable with (and be willing to defend) your organization’s defense of and support for white supremacy.
I don’t find these broad brush arguments on either side particularly useful or illuminating. Let’s start with the point that there’s a huge difference between a library having a copy (or multiple copies, for that matter) of Mein Kampf and, say, libraries allowing their program spaces to be used by Nazis or any other racist organization. There are plenty of reasons why libraries would collect and circulate objectionable material, and lots of bad reasons for NOT collecting that material even though it is objectionable. But I can’t think of a single good reason, outside of some atavistic belief that freedom of assembly in a library is an absolute and inalienable right, why they should allow other resources to be used by nazis, etc.
Libraries should absolutely advocate for freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry, but at the same time those are themselves culturally-specific values that libraries are pushing. I’m not sure what responsibility libraries have to those whose interests and intent is in fundamentally shutting down those valued freedoms through violence and threats of violence (which is really the same thing).
I think this discussion would be more fruitful if we could move away from binary extremes: either libraries must allow all points of view to be given equal value, or libraries must appoint themselves the arbiters of what values are acceptable and what aren’t. I don’t think either position is realistic or sustainable.
Libraries should above all serve their communities as best as they possibly can, and as broadly as they possibly can. They should acknowledge and celebrate the fact that their users are a diverse lot, culturally, linguistically, and politically (just to name a few facets of diversity; there are plenty of others.)
If there are conflicts within the community they serve–and face it, there always are–they need to engage in those conflicts creatively and with a certain amount of respect and empathy. I don’t think there can be an objective rubric that works for every library or every community universally. In my opinion, groups who are actively engaging in shutting down or destroying those communities do not deserve the same level of respect as groups that aren’t, whatever the ALA says.
In short: they should avoid the clarity of absolutism and engage in the hard, messy, and necessary work of engagement.
Cecily, I promise you that I am. My mother was one of two white women sent to segregated schools so she lived racism and she taught me to know it deeply. My mother was the working divorced so I was raised by a black maid who loved me and I am not speaking in the silver spoon way. Here is what I cannot get on board with what you said. There are all kinds of repugnant things that are “violent” in the word sense and deeply hurtful and deeply wrong. I have a gay niece who is deeply ostracized and an uncle who I barely knew who had to leave the country thirty years ago to avoid this. I lived in a seriously prejudicial part of the country that does not accept blue eyes and blonde hair. I know what you mean. It is precisely because I feel for all those people and have been on the end of difference all my life that I speak at all.
I agree with all you said. Most libraries/librarians would probably like to exist as agents of change… But we are at the mercy of our population served and that of the municipality. All of those things decide what we are and who we do it with. We are community advocates and organizers BUT, as such, we cannot serve on the exclusionary, discriminating end against people who believe certain news organizations like Breitbart are credible sources. These, indeed, are sources of white nationalist commentary, thought and skewed data-gathering. White nationalism/ the alt-right has become a mainstream society in rural America through lots of sources I will refrain from mentioning. How then would we police it effectively at any level?
David, as a 6th-generation Kansan who’s followed your work for some time – since library school, in fact – this post is troubling (as are some of the comments, which I may need an additional – yes, I said additional – cocktail to respond to in a productive way). I recognize that you are coming from a perspective as a public librarian. Public libraries have a complicated history in regards to both constitutional law and how librarians have structured patrons use and interactions with our collections and our spaces. Part of that history is positive – public libraries exist to serve their communities, and for many communities who did not otherwise have ready access to books, information, and research help, they were havens. Public libraries, and the history of librarianship, however, is far from neutral. Melville Dewey explicitly constructed our profession so that librarian positions were low-paid, repetitive clerical work that could be performed by women (not to mention numerous reports of his harassing behavior towards female students and colleagues). Libraries in the South upheld de jure segregation and often denied access to library materials to Black patrons. Libraries in areas that were not de jure segregated, often denied access on a de facto basis. These are just some examples, there are many more. In upholding a purported “neutrality” we are often upholding injustice. I also have a hard time taking this argument from someone who is experiencing this as an abstract argument and not as a real, potential threat of violence based on their identity.
Hi, I see you are using the Bill of Rights to make your points. June 21, ALA Council approved an new interpretation of of equity, diversity, & inclusion for the ALA Bill of Rights: http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/EDI … a few parts that stand out to me that may be pertinent to this discussion: Right IV states, “IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.” Now, it seems as though an easy jump for people to make here is “see! We can’t abridge free expression and free access to ideas!” but I implore you to consider whose rights would be abridged if we give a voice to hate speech and hate groups. The interpretation document goes onto say, “Libraries should establish and maintain strong ties to organizations that advocate for the rights of socially excluded, marginalized, and underrepresented people. Libraries should act in solidarity with all groups or individuals resisting attempts to abridge the rights of free expression and free access to ideas.” Also, “VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.” The use of the word equitable here is important. Is it equitable to prioritize access of one group over the multiple groups that group would want dead? I would personally say no, but that might just be me. The interpretation goes onto clarify “Libraries should not merely be neutral places for people to share information, but should actively encourage socially excluded, marginalized, and underrepresented people to fully participate in community debates and discussions. Libraries should welcome diverse content in their exhibit spaces and diverse ideas, individuals, and groups in their meeting rooms, even if some members of the community may object or be offended.” The word “offended” is also important here. I actually looked up the definition of that word, so I could be more precise: people from marginalized populations don’t feel “resentful and annoyed, typically as the result of a perceived insult” when a platform is given to people to wish that they did not exist (as a whole, not personally, just as a mass of people, not existing). The harm is much larger than that– “unsafe” comes to mind. I get that this is probably to “start a discussion” on your website, but that safety is not a hypothetical.
“I also have a hard time taking this argument from someone who is experiencing this as an abstract argument and not as a real, potential threat of violence based on their identity.” I spent way too many minutes trying to end my comment with something like this. Thank you!
Alright, I have a few issues with referring back to ALA policy/guidelines/etc.
1. ALA is not exactly known for being a diverse organization (read: it is mostly white people, in a largely white profession). On the one hand, you have POC literally saying that they feel unsafe in the library if we welcome neo-nazis, and you prefer to look to the documentation created by white people and ignore the concerns of POC? That is upholding white supremacy and signalling to POC, Jewish, and LGBTQ+ folks that you do not care whether they feel welcome in your space.
2. If we ARE going to look at this guideline, let’s point out the fact that they never use to word “equal”. They use the word “equitable”, which means “fair” and “just”. To me, equitable access, equitable service, etc. means libraries are favouring marginalized groups in order to counteract the centuries of injustices and inequality white, straight, cis-, able people have subjected them to. And that is not me pushing my personal views on library services–it is me recognizing history and trying to make the library a safer and more useful space to more people, rather than prioritize the oppressors.
I’m sorry, but the policy badly needs updating if white supremacists are meeting there.
I am going to be honest, I am finding this comment very hard to follow. But I think it is important to respond.
I am a bit hung up on the beginning of your post where it sounds like you are saying you know the fear Cecily has spoken about because you know people who have faced oppression. This is a problematic place to begin understanding the oppression of others to begin with, but I am even more confused because it still sounds like you are disregarding her concerns (though, as I mentioned, I am having a hard time following your post here)?
I am not going to pretend to understand Cecily’s lived experience, or that of any WOC, because I am white. And I do not feel the same threats simply because of the protection I have from the colour of my skin. So I know I need to actually listen to WOC to understand their experiences, and I think it speaks to white privilege that you are able to toss the concerns of WOC aside and ultimately support white supremacy in doing so.
If it is hard to understand the fear a POC or LGBTQ+ or disabled person may feel in the face of neo-Nazis (who literally want them eradicated from this earth), I guess I would just have to ask if you have ever been in a situation where you have felt physically in danger simply because you were a woman? I know I have, and I also remember trying to voice my concerns and have them be ignored. And how awful that felt. Like my feelings didn’t matter. Like my body didn’t matter. Like my personhood didn’t matter. It went so much deeper than simply feeling a little uncomfortable or unwelcome in a space. (And, let’s remember, none of the people making me feel unsafe ever voiced thinking the world would be a better place if I were dead. So this is really an apples to AK-47s comparison at best).
So, when you say “I understand, but it’s complicated”, it kind of just sounds like you either don’t understand the impact neo-nazi presence in the library has on POC, LGBTQ+, and disabled people (who, without any ambiguity, have had their existence threatened by neo-nazis) or, worse, do not care.
This conversation has largely centred around neutrality and access, but I don’t think it is okay to make any marginalized person feel any more unsafe in a library.
“All meetings making use of library space must be open to any member of the public and must be on the calendar with public notice two weeks in advance.” If you think observers from the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation league, and/or thenSPLC will show up to your white supremacist meeting, you just might choose to meet somewhere other than the public library.
I’ve been following these comments and just wanted to point out that I see the lone WOC (judged by avatars, I admit – apologies if I’ve missed anyone) sharing her lived experience and being dismissed by other commenters, and *literally* talked over by the moderator/author (see: http://disq.us/p/1ltpvrn). I also noted the author thanking almost all of those who chimed in … EXCEPT Cecily. White folks – it’s time to stop talking and start listening.
No, it does not. Libraries are open to all. It is a primary tenet of our profession.
The problem with all of these arguments is that I still know the small town folks from which I was raised. It is their perception, and the perception that this President was partially elected from, that ethnicity has become a very central and serious problem in the United States. And their “perception” is that they are the minority. They believe they are the disenfranchised. They believe they are the de facto “segregated” and the harassed by exclusion from things like workplace help because they don’t fit into a defined class. These people are certain their color is under attack. Now, I know how extraordinarily ignorant and wrong-headed that argument is but that dialog has persisted and progressed for too long now and we are all kidding ourselves if we pretend these are even marginally fringe groups. There is a disconnect between the reality of them versus all of us…meaning other minorities. They believe all minorities are undermining them, their life and lifestyle. It simply is not within our capacity or anyone who manages a library’s capacity to determine in a sole manner of proprietorship what policies will uphold justice. Justice is a thing that is completely allusive in our justice system itself. I realize that, apparently, as a part of academia, you have a sense of entitled idealism, which I don’t begrudge you. I wish I had that myself but that idealism itself is not an environment that exists in public libraries because we serve at the pleasure of other people such as ordinary citizens, library advisory boards, city and county municipal boards and most of all police juries, notorious throughout Louisiana and some of Texas. There is often political division between those members about matters just such as this and that division is growing there too with the minority there being US in many places. These are all examples of places where people do not retain leadership until they retain the leadership they desire. I understand all of the optimistic positions here but even in a library district atmosphere, there are possibilities that the leadership will not powerfully persuade the environment that is already comprised of a white nationalism spirit. This spirit masquerades as social Darwinism, Manifest Destiny and extreme individualism so it is rather difficult to detect what is an appropriate end for some. We can all say we know pornography when we see it but I suspect that isn’t true either. I am not going to degrade anyone here by calling their optimism melodramatic. I would also urge them not to degrade others who have served in public libraries for a very long time who utterly despise this small despicable mentality so much so that they personally fight the good fight daily in all the ways they can outside their career.
I’ll need to disagree with you here. I don’t think I’m talking over anyone – on the comment you saw, I was responding to the previous comment before Cecily’s reply was made.
Why haven’t I thanked her? I haven’t thanked everyone in the discussion (at least I don’t think so – I haven’t been counting). Cecily seemed to be primarily having a discussion with another commenter, and I wanted to let them both have their say. I also didn’t have anything to add – she has very valid viewpoints, and they are more than welcome here.
Hope that helps explain what you are seeing?
Thanks for adding that link – I hadn’t seen it. As far as safety not being a hypothetical? Yes – I agree, and said that at the beginning of my post.
Kate – Hi, and thanks for reading. This isn’t an abstract argument for me – I think it’s a very real issue that needs discussing, and from the comments I’ve seen, people are all over the place on it. And yes – threats of violence are illegal, and I hope would not be allowed anywhere (I said that at the beginning of my post).
And yes – I’m definitely coming at it as a public librarian.
If that was the intent of the original paragraph, continuing to then outline reasons why we might definitely invite racists to our libraries for the good of our community could be confusing. Thanks for taking a look at that link.
Kelly, I am not saying I have felt. The logistics are never about our feelings. If they were, this discussion would be a lot easier. However, I did work in a library where there was a level of prejudice in geography such that I experienced open hostility and actual threats to my person based on that. Somehow, you all have made this discussion about physical violence and the fact that it will likely be the most predo.I ment scenario. That is in itself a distortion of majority reality. I do feel a uniqueness of sympathy for her that I don’t anyone else unless I have seen their darker skin here. This is a difficult but simple reality. Libraries are a public sphere. They serve at The pleasure of their municipalities. Now I don’t k,ow any library or linear manager, director who would simply want to choose to host Neo-Nazis but there is always a possibility that an elected or city management or the like could deem this just as acceptable a place for public gathering as a courthouse courtyard. And there isn’t a thing we could do about that be whatever your feelings hers or mine are.
I just want to say I 100% agree. Neutral isn’t really neutral if you’re maintaining a racist status quo that has the end result of disenfranchisement of marginalized populations because they are made to feel unwelcome by your tacit support of racist elements in your community.
Are you kidding.
By making it open to white supremacists, you’re closing off POC.
I am personally not doing anything. These are policies adopted by Library Boards of Trustees all over the county.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/meetingrooms
“If meeting rooms in libraries supported by public funds are made available to the general public for non-library sponsored events, the library may not exclude any group based on the subject matter to be discussed or based on the ideas that the group advocates.”
The first time I read this article I just kinda moved on. When I saw it posted again somewhere I noticed that the image you chose for it is a white dude with duct tape over his mouth and “free speech” on his shirt. Can you explain your choice of image in context of this article?