- "Ex-OSU Librarian's Discrimination Suit Rejected," by Associated Press, NBC4i, 8 June 2010.
- "4-Year Debate Over a Book Choice," by Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Ed, 8 June 2010. Contains a link to the opinion itself.
- "Judge Rebuffs Christian in 'Marketing of Evil' Lawsuit; Librarian Accused of 'Sexual Harassment' by 'Gay' Profs for Recommending Book," by WorldNetDaily, WorldNetDaily, 8 June 2010. "What the G-- d----- f----- h--- kind of homophobic s--- h--- is this?"
- Savage v. Gee, ___ F.Supp.2d ___ (S.D. Ohio, June 7, 2010).
See my previous posts on this topic:
- "Censored Librarian Fights Back; Defamation Suit by Scott Savage--Maybe the ALA Should Be Sued Too," 28 August 2009.
- "ALA Conceals Policy Outrage by Ignoring Fired Librarian," 3 April 2008.
Hat tip LISNews (again on this matter): "Former OSU Librarian's Discrimination Suit Rejected," by birdie, LISNews, 8 June 2010.
"Intolerable enough"? "In Monday's ruling, Bertelsman said professors who criticized Savage weren't in a position to discipline him and that the librarian had his supervisors' support." So it is open season on Scott Savage because his supervisor supported him? Might his Christianity have had something to do with this?
Is "The Marketing of Evil" itself so evil that an academic librarian should be harassed then censored for recommending it? And the ALA will not help, even actively aiding in the censorship? Remember, the ALA does not want any librarians making any judgments about book content when it comes to sexually inappropriate material for children.
Consider that the ALA's Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) claims it is "dedicated to enhancing the ability of academic library and information professionals to serve the information needs of the higher education community and to improve learning, teaching, and research." Obviously not, if you promote something the ALA opposes. The ACRL statement vis-a-vis the fate of Scott Savage evidences another ALA double standard, and it is just more ALA propaganda.
I urge Scott Savage to consider an appeal. Please comment below.