tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post2569815489842817382..comments2024-03-29T01:40:58.563-04:00Comments on SafeLibraries®: Et tu, Mary Minow? Then Fall, Gail Sweet!SafeLibraries®http://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-8016901990510074602010-08-13T00:22:43.697-04:002010-08-13T00:22:43.697-04:00"On rare occasion, we have situations where a..."On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there."<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-18037684_ITM" rel="nofollow">Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week</a>," by Judith Krug of the ALA, Curriculum Review, 46:1, Sep. 2006.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-66177618592147624342010-08-10T21:31:51.120-04:002010-08-10T21:31:51.120-04:00"The interest in protecting young library use..."The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree"<br /><br />Wow, even after all this time, you still mis-interpret and mis-apply this quote. Amazing.Localhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798329694350161856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-89384912815593723312010-08-06T10:13:21.242-04:002010-08-06T10:13:21.242-04:00@DrBMBridge/Brian:
Thanks for writing here. Plea...@DrBMBridge/Brian:<br /><br />Thanks for writing here. Please stop by any time. Consider subscribing to this blog. I am sure you can see it is thought provoking; it includes the comments of authors, school administrators, Obama Administration officials, and others directly involved in the stories, and that comments are welcome no matter what they say.<br /><br />I am especially happy to have written this blog post and to have received a response from the author:<br /><br />"<a href="http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/10/seeking-author-trenton-lee-stewart.html" rel="nofollow">Seeking Author Trenton Lee Stewart; A Child Requests his Response to her Excellent Letter</a>"SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-10591477271681328382010-08-06T09:50:19.608-04:002010-08-06T09:50:19.608-04:00Continued...
Ultimately I think you and I will ha...Continued...<br /><br />Ultimately I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on this, we've read the same stuff (repeatedly in both cases I suspect) and consistently come to diametrically opposed conclusions. A perfect example is your commentary support of the Register News Article, which I also read after Geoffrey Wertime sent me a link to it. I too support that article as an excellent piece of factual journalistic reporting. However, I feel it reinforces my arguments and ultimate conclusions, whereas, I suspect, you feel it reinforces your opposing arguments and ultimate conclusions.<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for the debate. Good debate is like a mirror you can hold your conclusions up to and see from all sides. You and I may not agree on this but, as attributed to Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."<br /><br />Bit cheesey, I know but I still need to lower the blood level in my caffeine stream.<br /><br />BrianDrBMBridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096722827869817987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-31670511390292605482010-08-06T09:49:38.734-04:002010-08-06T09:49:38.734-04:00Look I've read the same media reports you have...Look I've read the same media reports you have, all of them, this is something I feel strongly about and research (aka "homework") is what I do (which is why I have a high level of confidence that I've seen all of them). So I feel comfortable in saying the following:<br /><br />Several media sources are finally reporting the actual words of the people involved, and those words evidence, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Gail Sweet acted improperly in her capacity as library director. <br /><br />I'm not trying to be funny there just (probably poorly) attempting to prove a point regarding wildly different opinion and interpretation based on the same set of inputs.<br />As with you, my opinions and interpretations are not solely based on the email evidence, but input obtained directly from the Director via interview with said media sources.<br />With regards to ad hominem (and apologies for quoting from Wikipedia, it was the fastest source I could find) "The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue." Alternatively, in this case the personal conduct, in the representative role and responsibilities of Director of a Public Library system, is the issue. <br />She did not follow her own system's policies and procedures (fact, as reported by Director Sweet in two parts a) commission minutes reporting the removal was at the bequest of an external party and letter to external party describing knowledge that they had complained to a commissioner and b) (in conflict to (a)) subsequent quoted response from Director Sweet in a media interview that they handled the book removal as "an internal matter"). Equally troubling and a basis for my overall assessment of the Director, either through omission or deception she failed to properly inform an employee (upon request) as to the reason/root cause for the book removal (external complaint from a non-member of the libraries administrative structure) instead minimistically replying that the reason was "Child Pornography".<br /><br />I get it, you like her and see her as a victim of the ACLU on some kind of witch hunt and you feel she should be given the benefit of the doubt here, but at best this was thoughtless, unprofessional and unacceptable for someone in an important role like hers, and at worst it was something decidedly more insidious. I don't know Director Sweet so I'm willing (in part based on your stalwart defense of her motives) to give her the benefit of the doubt on the latter despite what I see in -all- the available information as leaning to the contrary. However, what is unequivocal is that her actions, even as subsequently explained by herself, were grossly inappropriate for someone in a role such as hers, and, in my opinion, misconduct. Someone in such a role should have much better talents and capabilities at handling an issue like this, in such a way as to evidence a position of neutrality beyond reproof, and, when in doubt, rely on the safety net of her institutions well documented policies and procedures in conjunction with her professional Librarians' input and advice.<br /><br />More...DrBMBridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096722827869817987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-1339294104650248832010-08-06T09:00:23.366-04:002010-08-06T09:00:23.366-04:00@DrBMBridge/Brian:
I read all the documents produ...@DrBMBridge/Brian:<br /><br />I read all the documents produced by the ACLU. They are not inconsistent with the public statements of Sweet and Marinelli both saying that Sweet became aware of and acted on the book selection issue <i>sua sponte</i>, in other words, by herself.<br /><br />Looking at the emails alone leads one to the impression you have. But in context with the input of the people involved, you get a different picture. <br /><br />That is why the ACLU point of view is misleading and intentionally so. The ACLU presented the documents without input from the people involved. People started pushing the ACLU story without also fact checking the ACLU by contacting the people involved. That is the very thing this blog post is about, and in comment #2, I have been proven correct when Mary Minow agreed she should have sought the input of the library director.<br /><br />Imagine a court of law. Imagine you tell only the story of the emails and purposefully exclude any evidence presented by the people you are claiming are guilty. Does that sound fair to you? Does that sound like America?<br /><br />DrBMBridge, I don't need to do your homework. Several media sources are finally reporting the actual words of the people involved, and those words evidence, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Gail Sweet properly acted in her capacity as library director.<br /><br />When you do finally discuss the actual words of Gail Sweet, suddenly you switch from addressing the issues to addressing the person. You "question her professionalism and suitability for such a role" and later imply she is incompetent. Questioning is a fine thing to do, but <i>ad hominem</i> argument only evidences you have no legitimate substantive argument.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-80886243756664735602010-08-06T08:11:25.688-04:002010-08-06T08:11:25.688-04:00I'm sorry, but did you actually read the email...I'm sorry, but did you actually read the email correspondence between the Director and the 912 representative? Or the Library commission meeting minutes? Both clearly state that the book was removed following a request from a person external to the library, not as part of a content review or a "weeding" project, process or procedure. A request that came in a meeting between the Director and said representative where a strongly conservative agenda was clearly discussed based on the follow-up web links that were provided to the Director. At worst this is a special interest group dictating what I can and can not have in my library, at best it's circumventing the appropriate policies and procedures in place for assessing whether or not a book should be removed following an external complaint. Neither case is deserving of the appellation "book selection policy", something presumably the book passed successfully upon entry into the library system. The first case is an example of special interest induced censorship, whereas the best case is an example, at best mind you, of administrative misconduct potentially (and very disturbingly) induced by a sympathetic political/conservative bias on the part of those involved. I'd like to to believe someone in the Director's position could rise above that in her professional responsibilities, but her own correspondence is pretty damning.<br /> And speaking of damning, the interview she gave to the Register News calls into question her professionalism and suitability for such a role. Specifically I'm referring to her comments on "trying to be funny", under what possible circumstances can a professional communication to an employee describing the reasons for removal of a book as "Child Pornography" deserve the meritorious description of "funny"?<br /> I can sympathize with (but not agree with) your desire to challenge the organizations you see a source of misdirection in the libraries in this country (ALA, OIF, ACLU, etc) who are at the forefront of confronting the Director's behavior. However, I can not see why, given the evidence presented (email thread, meeting minutes, published BCLS policies and procedures, etc) you can support the actions of the BCLS Director, nor her continued presence in that role. It reminds me of something my mother used to say to me when I was a kid "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face", wouldn't it be better to have a politically neutral, professionally competent Director in place who enables their Librarians to perform their duties to the best of their abilities free of influence and lobbying from special interest groups, whether they be from the right or left?DrBMBridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096722827869817987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-32968977670543598242010-08-05T22:44:58.960-04:002010-08-05T22:44:58.960-04:00@anonymous/Mark L.:
One ADF letter and you label...@anonymous/Mark L.: <br /><br />One ADF letter and you label me the way you did? As I recall that letter, it was one opposing illegal pornography. Illegal being the key word. I oppose illegal pornography. I'll assume you do too.<br /><br />Be that as it may, I can now report that in addition to Mary Minow, a reporter has informed me that I have made reasoned and balanced arguments and that I am correct that Gail Sweet's input should be sought.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-84555082613386273692010-08-05T22:21:19.660-04:002010-08-05T22:21:19.660-04:00I followed up on the links you provided and found ...I followed up on the links you provided and found your supposed support for balanced review of library materials specious at best. It completely fell apart when I found SafeLibraries.org listed on American Defense Fund letterhead. Onward Christian soldier. <br /><br />-Mark L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-62258668295097511102010-08-05T18:18:19.101-04:002010-08-05T18:18:19.101-04:00@DrBMBridge/Brian:
I appreciate your writing here...@DrBMBridge/Brian:<br /><br />I appreciate your writing here and expressing your thoughts. I know this blog post is getting a lot of attention so people will see what you have said and you will not have wasted your time writing here. The more conversation, the better.<br /><br />Know that it is not censorship to apply book selection policies to materials in public libraries. The <a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html" rel="nofollow">US Supreme Court talked approvingly about the book selection process</a>. Certainly the US Supreme Court is not censorious.<br /><br />Thanks again for writing.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-50115180600882171042010-08-05T18:17:44.154-04:002010-08-05T18:17:44.154-04:00@anonymous/Mark L.:
I used "inappropriate&q...@anonymous/Mark L.: <br /><br />I used "inappropriate" as the least judgmental way to describe the material in question, given how it was described by the people involved. I also used the word since the US Supreme Court does, as in "<a href="http://laws.findlaw.com/us/539/194.html" rel="nofollow">The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree</a>." If that word is good enough for the US Supreme Court, it is good enough for me.<br /><br />Regarding the authors, <a href="http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2008/10/dear-felice-picano-joy-of-gay-sex-co.html" rel="nofollow">I have spoken with Felice Picano</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FelicePicano52KB.jpg" rel="nofollow">helped him post his picture on Wikipedia</a>. Given what you said about him, I am certain you will enjoy what I wrote about him. You see, <a href="http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/02/safelibraries-loves-authors-and-opposes.html" rel="nofollow">I support authors and oppose censorship</a>. Fortunately, no censorship occurred in the library in question, or I would be saying something entirely different.<br /><br />And note well that I do not automatically jump at the chance to remove "inappropriate" materials from public libraries. Just in the previous blog post, well, the title speaks for itself: "<a href="http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/07/extensive-therapy-for-library-thief.html" rel="nofollow">Extensive Therapy For Library Thief; Crestview Public Library Not Responsible For Child's Losing His Mind Over Stolen Adult Material</a>."SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-80989049320045386732010-08-05T16:12:55.204-04:002010-08-05T16:12:55.204-04:00Fair enough. I was just curious as to why you deem...Fair enough. I was just curious as to why you deem the material inappropriate:<br /><br />"...seeking the restoration of the inappropriate material to the library..."<br /><br />While not directly relevant to Gail Sweet or your post, a personal experience piqued my interest in what you wrote. In 1979, I was a freshman at Kent State when I discovered Felice Picano, Anais Nin, and a treasure trove of feminist poets. These opened my eyes and my mind to other authors, playwrights, painters and musicians, and laid the foundation for a lifelong love of the arts. I would suspect some would have deemed these as 'inappropriate' for an 18-year-old kid from rural Ohio, and asked that they be removed from the KSU collection. I will be forever grateful that did not happen. - Mark L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-74305191642256430452010-08-05T15:53:59.612-04:002010-08-05T15:53:59.612-04:00I'm afraid I completely disagree with you. Wha...I'm afraid I completely disagree with you. What the Director of BCLS did was wrong. I'm a resident of Burlington County and I don't appreciate those in a role such as the one the Director holds censoring the contents of my libraries. As long as it doesn't break any laws I don't really think the subject matter is even relevant here. I'm not a librarian, nor am I affiliated with the ACLU, ALA, etc in any way. I do however greatly respect the noble profession of Librarian and feel strongly that they should be the guardians of knowledge, not the judges. If this material is inappropriate for children then keep it away from them until they are old enough to decide for themselves, i.e. adulthood. Don't make that decision for them irrevocably, and certainly don't make it for me.<br />As for the process that was or wasn't or should or should not have been applied, the email thread available online is pretty unambiguous that the ultimate book ban/censorship was the result of direct access by someone external to the library system, regardless of who they are or their relevant or otherwise affiliations, shouldn't this have meant that the matter was not handled as a purely internal affair? (email thread is here http://blog.librarylaw.com/files/foiaemails.pdf)<br /><br />Very greatly disappointed in BCLS and it's Director.<br /><br />BrianDrBMBridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13096722827869817987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-67092023113065258412010-08-05T15:30:31.525-04:002010-08-05T15:30:31.525-04:00Thanks, Mark L., for writing.
The email exchange ...Thanks, Mark L., for writing.<br /><br />The email exchange does appear to prove what you say, especially as it was initially presented in the media thanks to the ACLU's input.<br /><br />I am happy to say, however, that I was the first to report the truth that the library director acted on her own initially. Further, likely thanks to my input based on my conversation with the library director, other media sources, including national media, are starting to report the truth.<br /><br />So that's that.<br /><br />As to my view of this, that, or the other thing, it really is irrelevant. In this case I have been reporting news thanks to my talk with the person involved, while others did not speak with her before repeating the ACLU line. No other reporters have to explain how they personally feel, and neither should I.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-8572984531356374732010-08-05T14:46:01.809-04:002010-08-05T14:46:01.809-04:00The email exchange between Gail Sweet and Beverly ...The email exchange between Gail Sweet and Beverly Marinelli clearly indicate that a review of Revolutionary Voices was done at Marinelli's request. And apparently Sweet agreed with Marinelli's assessment that the book is "pervasively vulgar, obscene, and inappropriate."<br /><br />I haven't read the book, but I'm curious if the author of this blog agrees with Marinelli's assessment. If so, what criteria should one use when assessing material available to patrons of a public library? - Mark L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-77563912865183869852010-08-04T22:39:24.499-04:002010-08-04T22:39:24.499-04:00Anonymous, thank you for commenting.
Your last se...Anonymous, thank you for commenting.<br /><br />Your last sentence was particularly interesting: "Surely all my old classmates, who found these same books on the shelves, must now be receiving extensive therapy from the trauma." You did read my immediately preceding blog post, right? See "<a href="http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/07/extensive-therapy-for-library-thief.html" rel="nofollow">Extensive Therapy For Library Thief; Crestview Public Library Not Responsible For Child's Losing His Mind Over Stolen Adult Material</a>."SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-48272324848805009712010-08-04T11:41:47.341-04:002010-08-04T11:41:47.341-04:00I'm sorry, but a single grainy and non-pornogr...I'm sorry, but a single grainy and non-pornographic image is no grounds for removing that book.<br /><br />I find it doubtful that there'd have been a reaction like that if the same picture had been in a book that was not promoting awareness of homosexual voices.<br /><br />I don't understand why parents want to shelter their children from the real world that they will grow up to inhabit - I suppose this is an object lesson of the fact that this real world will also include people with small minds and prejudices in their hearts.<br /><br />Growing up, my library had The Joy of Sex on the shelf, plus some pretty steamy Judy Blume novels. Lo and behold, I managed to grow up to be a person of relative intelligence, married faithfully, with a completely healthy attitude towards sex. Guess I was just one of the lucky ones! Surely all my old classmates, who found these same books on the shelves, must now be receiving extensive therapy from the trauma.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-59046218810100764502010-08-03T23:01:17.435-04:002010-08-03T23:01:17.435-04:00My view of the "child pornography" red h...My view of the "child pornography" red herring has been confirmed. This shows in yet another way that my reporting on the incident, limited as it may be, exposes the ACLU and media claims as false. <br /><br />Here is how the library director herself is reported to have discussed the child pornography issue:<br /><br />"In an interview this week Ms. Sweet agreed the e-mails sound strongly worded but insisted they were not meant that way.<br /><br />"'I was really being funny, even if it doesn't sound it,' she said. 'Maybe they were ill-advised words, but I've learned something: Be careful what you put in e-mail. They were not meant in any way other than being facetious.'"<br /><br />Source: "<a href="http://www.centraljersey.com/articles/2010/08/03/the_register_news/news/doc4c5878149d36a655683719.txt" rel="nofollow">Gay Book Pulled at Library, Activists Stage Protests</a>," by <b>Geoffrey Wertime</b>, <i>Register-News</i>, 3 August 2010.<br /><br />The same source also confirms (as did the AL source) that, as I reported, the library director initiated an evaluation of the book <i>sua sponte</i>: "She said the decision was made internally after she heard about the controversy in Rancocas Valley."<br /><br />The source also confirms I was right about the homosexuality red herring:<br /><br />"Ms. Sweet also said the move came after she saw the picture of the two men in the book. 'It was not the subject matter in the slightest. In this case it was the picture. Rightly or wrongly, it was a judgment call,' she said."<br /><br />And I have that picture in my blog post.<br /><br />Based on this one media report, I have to think that, besides Mary Minow now being willing to listen to Gail Sweet, people are listening to what I have been saying and are realizing the ACLU propaganda may be just that, propaganda.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-90166567262619818822010-08-03T00:26:54.457-04:002010-08-03T00:26:54.457-04:00As illustrated in the second comment by Mary Minow...As illustrated in the second comment by Mary Minow immediately above, she is the consummate professional I fully know her to be. She is going to give library director Gail Sweet some input.<br /><br />In all my years writing what I write, only rarely do people respond so graciously. Diane Chen and Rory Litwin are other examples beside Mary Minow who come to my mind. <br /><br />Usually, I criticize members of the ALA's OIF. Invariably, there is either no response, a nasty response, an anonymous nasty/dishonest response, or a public statement denouncing me and warning people not to view my web site, even at ALA annual meetings. No class. No intellectual honesty. No adherence to its own policies. Like the ALA President and the ALA generally is still silent about Camila Alire's <a href="http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2010/05/ala-double-standard-on-accuracy-in.html" rel="nofollow">plagiarism</a> (but Gail Sweet is <a href="http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/node/4631" rel="nofollow">sour</a>). <br /><br />This typical/expected response or lack thereof is exactly what makes honest responses all the more special. I am happy to count Mary Minow as one among my library friends, even while we see things differently. <br /><br />Most importantly, I am happy to have provided support to Gail Sweet and her community/patrons. I hope people will now realize the stories made up about her by the ACLU / NCAC / ALA are just that, stories. Such is often the case with these organizations, from my experience, as this blog documents.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-47682177414665998482010-08-02T18:05:52.294-04:002010-08-02T18:05:52.294-04:00I have now sent an email to the director, and am a...I have now sent an email to the director, and am awaiting her reply. As soon as I hear back, I will post her comments on my blog. - Mary MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-64722510441482085242010-08-02T09:41:01.560-04:002010-08-02T09:41:01.560-04:00Another well crafted article by SLJ. They must be...Another well crafted article by SLJ. They must be commended as they have perfected the art of deception. Only the simple minded are unable to see through their twisted misrepresentations of truth. <br /><br />Statements such as "there was no official challenge, no actual vote by the commissioners" almost lead one to believe that this woman is guilty of some malfeasance, even though the next paragraph outlines a procedure that doesn't require such steps. <br /><br />Had she followed the same procedures to remove a copy of “Martha‘s Favorite Recipes“ <br />no one would have questioned her actions. Had the title been “Encouraging Abstinence” she would have been hailed a hero. <br /><br />SLJ authors aren't journalists, they are propagandists who feel compelled to distort the truth and stand on fallacies in an effort to validate the ALA agenda.<br /><br />Stand strong Gail, you are in good company. Many good people have been equally misrepresented. Thank you for your honorable actions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com