Showing posts with label AlaIntimidatesParents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AlaIntimidatesParents. Show all posts

Sunday, January 1, 2023

School Librarians Directly Attack Parents; Time to Remove All ALA Influence

School librarians now directly attack parents.  At an upcoming annual conference, librarians will get pins to wear saying, "Librarians: Tougher than Your Challenge."  So when a parent meets a librarian about inappropriate material in a school library, the librarian may be wearing a pin saying, "Librarians: Tougher than Your Challenge."  That's librarians directly attacking parents, created and egged on by American Library Association (ALA).  It's bullying—by librarians—to keep kids reading sexually inappropriate materials in schools.  It's time to remove all ALA influence, both in policy and people.

These pins will be handed out by the American Library Association [ALA] at an ALA conference called LibLearnX:


For those who do not know, school librarians have been actively pushing sexually inappropriate material on school children. ALA trains librarians that sexually inappropriate material that could be immediately removed from schools under Board of Education v. Pico for being pervasively vulgar should instead be "reframed" as "diversity" and "inclusion."  Meanwhile, in obvious projection, "ALA Blames Parents for 'Toxic Framing' of Explicit Books."  

Any parents waking up to this reality are challenging these books in schools across America, often being silenced by school boards (and media) that cannot bear to hear the explicit words and see the graphic child p r n pictures their children are getting from their school librarians.  ALA spins this as a rising tide of censorship, racism and homophobia, and even created Unite Against Book Bans as a direct result of parents successfully using Pico to remove "Gender Queer: A Memoir" by Maia Kobabe from public schools.  

Media naturally applies the ALA spin that parents are homophobic censors who are in the vast minority when the truth is the exact opposite per a Harris poll and a recent Rasmussen poll saying, "Voters overwhelmingly oppose sexually explicit books in public school libraries, and believe schools have an obligation to inform parents what their children are being taught."  

Media repeats the ALA lie that the First Amendment requires schools to make available any material of any kind because, under ALA's so-called "Library Bill of Rights," it's supposedly age discrimination to keep children from any material whatsoever, and to hell with what Pico says.  

But media never report those polls/laws and librarians just keep pushing no matter what or who the obstacle—parents are just another obstacle—hence the LibLearnX pins to buck up the librarians to face inquisitive parents seeking redress of their government under the First Amendment.  Librarians use the First Amendment to argue kids must get graphic child p r n in schools while ignoring the First Amendment when it comes to parents rights to find out what's going on.  Heck, librarians even work to subvert the law, precisely to keep school kids reading explicit materials Pico would eliminate—see "School Librarians Train to Violate FOIA Law to Keep Parents In the Dark About Sexualizing Children."  And ALA is urging librarians to get legislators to legislate away the right for parents to even complain in the first place.

Notice the ALA organization promoting the pins to bully the parents?  It's none other than ALA Booklist.  Why is this significant?  Because Booklist Selection Policy is used to select supposedly good books for children, then schools incorporate Booklist into their policies.  In Tulsa, OK, for example, Booklist is even listed first in the school system's selection policy: "Selection Tools; Standard review sources such as Booklist, Horn Book, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, The Digest of Software Reviews: Education, and AFVA Evaluations."


So ALA's Booklist, used by schools to evaluate materials appropriate for students, is handing out buttons to librarians telling them not to let book challenges by parents succeed in removing sexually inappropriate material.  At ALA's LibLearnX.  Government employees learning to better sexualize children in government schools, and getting little buttons/pins from ALA Booklist to keep the training top of mind and to send a signal to complaining parents.

ALA's LibLearnX has a "Statement of Appropriate Conduct / Virtual Meeting Code of Conduct."  The ALA Booklist pins buck up school librarians to bully parents, meanwhile the ALA itself demands, "ALA has zero-tolerance for any form of discrimination or harassment."  Can you believe what kind of two-faced people are librarians?  Don't screw each other, but parents? For parents, librarians are tougher than any challenge and no matter what they do, their children are going to read sexually inappropriate material no matter what parents say.

Action to take:  
  • Know that it is us parents in the vast majority, not the ALA-trained groomers using flimsy excuses like reframing explicit material as diversity and inclusion and using a fake ALA poll for Unite Against Books Bans showing most people oppose book banning.  No kidding!  But that's not the issue.  The Harris and Rasmussen polls ALA ignores are the issue, that the vast majority oppose explicit books in schools, the opposite of what ALA says.  That's why ALA ignores those polls—and that's more evidence of the dishonesty of ALA and why its policies need to be extirpated.  This graphic from ALA Unite Against Book Bans is a flat out lie:


  • Know parents and their community's rules should control local schools and libraries, not the policies set by a groomer organization from Chicago, IL, that's applying ACLU policy to sexualize and indoctrinate America's children.  ALA says, "individuals should not be making decisions for other readers or for other parents' children. Specifically, a small group of parents should not dictate what books other people's children are allowed to read."  The reality is that ALA from Chicago, IL, is doing the dictating, telling your community that kids must be allowed to read anything at all, even graphic child p r n like "Gender Queer," and parents should be wholly ignored.  It's projection.  It's ALA making the decisions instead of parents/communities.  Don't fall for the ALA lie.
  • Do not accept any book reviews from ALA Booklist or other sources ALA pushes since ALA Booklist is handing out pins to encourage librarians to automatically defeat any challenge by any parent.  Talk about bias!  If you get any documents from schools or any policies or book review decisions referring to ALA Booklist, know the fix is in and parents have lost out to the overwhelming bullying of ALA librarians trained to defeat parental requests, even by use of illegal means, with policies that bake in the bias.  
  • Librarians will do anything at all to sexualize school children.  Anything.  Then they will brag about it to each other on Facebook in ALA Facebook groups or crypto ALA Facebook groups (those run by ALA librarians without displaying official sponsorship by ALA).  TikTok is another place librarians brag about sexualizing kids against their parent's express wishes, just search Libs of TikTok @LibsOfTikTok on Twitter for the word librarian.  So investigate such sources to get inside information.  For example, it is how I learned that Houston's public library did not vet two convicted pedophile drag queens who wagged their behinds in children's faces even though the library has a policy to vet everyone—because the woke librarians felt vetting a drag queen would be a microaggression.
Since ALA says, "Librarians: Tougher than Your Challenge," we know they fear parents and the truth is the opposite.  ALA's new Marxist President Elect Emily Drabinsky has vowed to "wield collective power" to bring revolution to school students, as reporting about me and her in the New York Post.  Even the New York Times has reported "Librarians Losing Child Sexualization War Against Parents; Librarians Want Out."  





Well, we parents should wield our collective power—since we are in the vast majority as the Harris and Rasmussen polls prove—to rid the schools of the ALA policies and its acolyte employees and board members.  

It's time to stop the sexualization of school children by librarians, and it's going to be parents and their allies who will be stopping it.  

Here's a new pin: "Parents: Tougher than Your Chicago Illinois Trained School Librarian Following ALA Policy."
Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA

Monday, December 12, 2016

Librarians Guide to Defeating Parents By EveryLibrary

Responding to Opposition: Training Guide by EveryLibrary

So how do we stay on message in the face of our critics? You should realize that, no matter how great your campaign message, your library campaign is going to have its critics.  It doesn’t matter how much the library is loved, the anti-library groups will almost always have some voice in your community.

Responding to Opposition

There are most likely groups of people in your community with the opinion that the library isn’t needed.  There are people who will think that the library should be run by volunteers.  There are people who will believe that the library is doing something malicious with their money.  Finally, there are most likely groups of people who just plain and simply don’t want to pay more taxes no matter what for.

While you should expect to always have opposition, you shouldn’t always expect to have a fight on your hands.  There are ways to quiet the opposition enough that they don’t pose a risk for your campaign.  Remember, you don’t need them to be completely quiet, you don’t need them to love the library, you don’t even need them to vote for the library.  You just need them to not get in the way, vote against, or sabotage the campaign.  Your goal is only to turn them from an active opposition to a passive opposition.

Online or IRL?

Before we begin, I should point out that many of these techniques work for oppositional messages in the comments of blog posts or news articles as well as in real life.  It’s the way that you structure your response that is important and it works across media platforms.  In either case, I want to make sure to note that you should never directly attack your opposition by calling them out by name or specifically responding to just them. Instead of directly attacking your opponent, you should build a message that can be repeated often enough that their message simply gets buried.  You can have your supporters post variations of the same counter message or dozens of positive stories on a blog post until the negative comments are buried.  Whatever you do, don’t validate them or fuel their anger, mistrust, or hatred by attacking them.

Sources of Opposition

It’s extremely important to know who your opposition is and why they don’t support the library.  This is something that should ideally be done during the surfacing phase of your campaign but new opposition can show up at any time.  Luckily, in the case of libraries, you have something up your sleeve.  We at EveryLibrary have heard just about every possible opposition message to libraries, from the most ridiculous, to the most reasonable.  Here are some of the most heard opposition messages that we have heard;
  • The library tax will be yet another tax that (homeowners/small business owners/residents) can’t afford to pay.
  • The internet has everything that I could just find at the library
  • I don’t want to pay more taxes
  • We don’t need a new library
  • The library can be run by volunteers
  • Libraries are irrelevant because I never use them
What you also need to recognize is that some people will never change their view or opinion no matter what you say or do.  Attempting to convince them otherwise will be a huge waste of resources and not something that your campaign can not afford to do.  It is far more important to go out and engage the people who are already on your side and get those voters to the polls in greater numbers than the opposition can. You can be much more effective talking to people who are on the fence than those who have already made up their mind.

The desire to respond to the opposition directly can be difficult to resist.  Instead there are ways that you can use the opposition to build your supporter base.  You can actually turn your opposition’s messages against them and use those messages to convince your supporters to get to the polls.  You can use the public debate to educate the public about the issues and build greater support.  This paper will outline how to do just that.

Listen

The first thing that you should always do when handling discussions from people who have concerns about library ballot measures is listen to them.  Since nearly all opposition stems from a place of fear, you need to handle their concerns with respect and show a concern and understanding about what they are afraid of.  Don’t directly oppose their position as that will give them a sense of validation and you will remain actively opposed.  Instead, you should listen and respect their opinion and don’t be afraid to ask meaningful questions.  Once you have their source of fear, you can alleviate it.

Repeat

Once you know what their fear is, the first thing you should do is repeat it.  You should not directly counter their argument with an opposing viewpoint since this will be perceived as combative and people will fight back until they feel that they won.  By repeating their concerns or fears you prove that you understand them and that you respect their ideals and the repetition will be almost immediately calming.
  • The library tax will be yet another tax that small business owners can’t afford to pay.
  • I understand the great burden placed on small business owners….
  • The internet has everything that I could just find at the library
  • The internet is a great source of information…
  • I don’t want to pay more taxes
  • I understand that taxes are high…
  • We don’t need a new library.
  • We know that people love the old library and everything that it provided to the community…
  • The library can be run by volunteers
  • That’s an excellent suggestion and our volunteers are very valuable…

Question

Sometimes the opposition is unclear about their messaging, or what they are saying doesn’t make sense.  If you can’t figure out what their fear is, don’t be afraid to ask questions.  You can usually get to the root of the issue by kindly asking questions and addressing the root issue.  Most people will feel that you genuinely care if you are asking questions and you can help move them over from active to passive opposition.

Get back to the message

Here is where that message box comes in and where you can see how useful it is.  Since you should have already brainstormed and/or recorded as many of the opposition’s messages, you will be able to develop “and” statements to craft your counter message.  The “and” statement is what you use after repeating their concern.  This is how you are working to solve the same issue that they are concerned about.  This is how you show that you are actually on their side and that you both have the same concerns.  It is very important that you use an “and” statement and not a “but” or a “yes but” statement.  You should never use a “no” statement because you are not disagreeing with them.  You are trying to show that you agree and that you are both actually on the same side.
  • The library tax will be yet another tax that small business owners can’t afford to pay.
  • I understand the great burden placed on small business owners AND that’s why we provide so many resources that make being a small business owner easier
  • The internet has everything that I could just find at the library
  • The internet is a great source of information AND that’s why we want to increase the community’s access to it and add value to what you get from it.
  • I don’t want to pay more taxes
  • I understand that taxes are high AND that is why it’s so important to me to provide services to the community that help bring the cost of living down and the value of the community up.
  • We don’t need a new library.
  • We know that people love the old library and everything that it provides to the community AND that’s why it’s so important to us that we continue to provide the services of the old library and the kinds of services that you deserve in a modern age.
  • The library can be run by volunteers
  • That’s an excellent suggestion and we love our volunteers AND that’s why the library uses as many volunteers as we can to streamline our processes and free up our paid staff to provide the best services we possibly can

Reinforce Your Message

You can reinforce your message by using examples of how you’re achieving your “and” statement.  These examples should be concrete and provable.  You should never lie and say that your library provides something that it doesn’t or something that you can’t prove that it provides.  This is also where that message box comes back into play. You can use your opposition’s messages to research your examples so that you have them in mind before the discussion even begins.  It’s always best to give more than one example, but you should probably never offer more than three in order to avoid the appearance of “I gotcha.”
  • The library tax will be yet another tax that small business owners can’t afford to pay.
  • I understand the great burden placed on small business owners AND that’s why we provide so many resources that make being a small business owner easier. FOR EXAMPLE, we often have programming on hiring staff for small business owners and we offer patent and trademark classes to teach small business owners to protect their property.
  • The internet has everything that I could just find at the library
  • The internet is a great source of information AND that’s why we want to increase the community’s access to it and add value to what you get from it.  FOR EXAMPLE, we offer high speed internet access along with databases that provide a level of well researched and scientifically supported articles that you just can’t find for free on the internet.
  • I don’t want to pay more taxes
  • I understand that taxes are high AND that is why it’s so important to me to provide services to the community that help bring the cost of living down and the value of the community up. FOR EXAMPLE, we provide opportunities for teens and youth to volunteer and become engaged citizens and we provide storytimes for new parents to help the children with early literacy and get them ready for school.
  • We don’t need a new library.
  • We know that people love the old library and everything that it provides to the community AND that’s why it’s so important to us that we continue to provide the services of the old library and the kinds of services that you deserve in a modern age. FOR EXAMPLE, with a new library, we can provide for programming space to support our growing community and we can provide access to even more materials.
  • The library can be run by volunteers
  • That’s an excellent suggestion AND that’s why the library uses as many volunteers as we can to streamline our processes and free up our paid staff to provide the best services we possibly can.  FOR EXAMPLE, we love having our volunteers take on roles that free up staff to work on higher level tasks such as budgets, training, and working with high level technology issues.

Arm Your Campaign

These counter messages are your campaign’s weapons against the opposition so while these answers work well, they are not formatted for your community of voters and you will need the right weapon at the right time.  Everything that we have used here are simply common examples and you will need to do some opposition research and continuously revisit and use your message box with any of the opposition messages that you come across.  Most importantly, you need to practice with your weapons to get back on message.  This means taking some time with your campaign committee and volunteers and doing role playing games where one person plays the opposition and you respond to their claims by getting back to your message using the correct format.  Record some of the best responses, distribute them to your campaign members, and make sure that everyone has them memorized and is well trained on responding to the opposition.

The Opposition’s Outright Lies

Sometimes the opposition lies.  There is not a whole lot you can do about that.  We have seen it happen in a number of campaigns and the problem with lies is that because they are not based on fact, there is very little evidence to the contrary.  But there are a few things that you can do about it in order to simply pacify the opposition until the campaign is over.  Remember that you are simply trying to win the election and you don’t need to discredit or prove the liars wrong, you just need them to be quiet until the campaign is over.

One of the biggest lies that we have seen crop up around election time is that of porn in the library.  Often, these library detractors will try to use examples of porn issues in other libraries, a lack of filters on the computers, and language and content in YA materials to “prove” that the library WANTS to expose kids to porn.  Of course, we know that there is no truth to this ideology but there is typically very little you can do to disprove it.

Solutions for Opposition

While you’ll find that there are people in the community who are serious in their opposition to your library, there are a few things you can try to do to either get them to quiet down or get out of the way.  We are going to use the porn in the library discussion as our example in the these three solutions.
  1. One technique would be to simply use the same Agree, And, For Example format that we discussed earlier.  In the example of the individuals concerned about porn we can use this-
-Thank you for bringing this to our attention, we also want our children to be safe and secure while they are in the library so we take your claim very seriously AND we are going to do something about it. FOR EXAMPLE, we are going to look into a committee to seriously look into the exposure of porn to children in the community.
  1. You can invite them more into the campaign to be a part of the solution.  You can talk about how the library really needs the resources that the win for the library would bring in order to ensure that the library can protect the kids.  With the money you can purchase better filters and take staff time to look at the collection development policy or build a committee specifically to protect the children.  Of course, if you make these campaign promises, you will need to deliver on them if you win.
  2. Another solution is to side-step the campaign and form a committee to look into the issue.  In this case, you might even invite the detractor to be a part of the committee.  You can set the schedule of meetings and the timing of the outcomes of the committee to occur AFTER the Election Day.  This is a very common political ploy used often in campaigns that utilizes a diversion and delay technique to work around election days or long enough until the voters have forgotten about the issue.

Build Your Story

Sometimes you might find that you can build your story.  What this means is that you find people in your community who can tell the opposite story.  You will need to identify community members who can show up to meetings and tell a personal account of the opposite experience.  In the case of porn in the library, you can have community members show up to meetings and talk about how their kids are not exposed to adult material on the computers or that their kids found value in the books they read at the library and that they could then have a meaningful conversation about the issue with their children.  They can tell stories of being responsible parents who monitor their children in public spaces.  If you use this technique, never mention or directly oppose or attack the person making the original claim.  Simply bury their claim in great stories that tell a counter account of their experience.

Ignore Them

The last technique you can use is to simply ignore them.  Sometimes, if you ignore the lie it simply doesn’t gain enough momentum and traction and goes away.  This is risky, but if you know enough about the detractor or who they know in the community, you can make an informed guess as to whether or not they can get enough support of their claim to become a problem.  The detractor may simply go find something else to lie about somewhere else in the community.  This is usually because they are trying to build a name for themselves or play a “hero” role in the community and they won’t be able to gain that role if nobody steps up to be the villain.

One thing that you should never do is openly debate, criticize, or demean the person bringing up the lie.  They can use your open debate to validate themselves and their claim.  If you criticize or publicly demean them, they can make the claim that you are simply trying to put them down because they are close to “the truth.”  You will become the villain that they are looking for and they will make the case that they are the hero.


Source of above (except the title):
  • "Responding to Opposition: Training Guide," by Patrick Sweeney or Andrew Woodworth, EveryLibrary, 21 October 2015 (free subscription required to view; republished under Fair Use Copyright rules for educational, nonprofit purposes).
Note:  The title of this post, "Librarians Guide to Defeating Parents By EveryLibrary," was written by SafeLibraries.  The "guide" itself was written by EveryLibrary and labels parents as "biggest liars" and "detractors":
One of the biggest lies that we have seen crop up around election time is that of porn in the library.  Often, these library detractors will try to use examples of porn issues in other libraries, a lack of filters on the computers, and language and content in YA materials to “prove” that the library WANTS to expose kids to porn.  Of course, we know that there is no truth to this ideology but there is typically very little you can do to disprove it.
Previously, the American Library Association's "Office for Intellectual Freedom" labeled any parent who ever complained about anything as a "censor":
So whether parents are labeled as "liars," "detractors," or "censors," librarians as being trained, as this EveryLibrary "guide" proves again, to defeat parents.

By the way, ALA opposes labeling books—but labeling parents is a useful means for bullying, ridicule, and sending the message to other parents that they should not themselves dare challenge anything whatsoever.  It's a propaganda technique called "jamming."

The last section of the above "guide" called "Ignore Them" is about SafeLibraries as just months before one of the authors besmirched my efforts to stop the sexual harassment of librarians and convinced other librarians to ignore me.  He is an "ignore them" expert:
EveryLibrary even actively censors me to hide my exposing how ALA is involved in the sexual harassment of librarians, child pornography, and homophobia.  Yes, EveryLibrary deleted proof ALA hides its homophobia.  See 1) before, 2) after censorship.

EveryLibrary is a federally registered 501(c)(4) "Social Welfare Organization."  One wonders what attacking every single parent who complains about anything such as pornography in libraries has to do with "Social Welfare":

Source: EveryLibrary at YouTube:
https://youtu.be/4p9qcPmgrZk?t=3m50s
Indeed, since EveryLibrary assists in attacking parents who seek libraries that comply with the law and/or community standards instead of with ALA diktat, such as allowing Internet porn including child pornography in public libraries despite the law, then EveryLibrary may be in violation of 501(c)(4) "because planning and sponsoring illegal acts are in themselves inconsistent with charity and social welfare...."

If you are helping to spread Internet pornography and child pornography in public libraries and school libraries by organizing attacks on those seeking to end such things, where's the charity and social welfare in that?  Why should the public subsidize that?

SafeLibraries is happy to present EveryLibrary's "guide" for librarians on how to defeat parents.  Knowing the tricks of the librarians seeking to enable libraries to violate the law, the identity of the tricksters, and the potential for influence on local librarians may help parents who seek redress of their government in accordance with the law and despite the diktat of ALA or the organized bullying of EveryLibrary.


NOTE ADDED 17 JANUARY 2020:

As EveryLibrary has grown, it still leads librarians and others on how to defeat parents.  However, it appears to have censored "Responding to Opposition: Training Guide," by Patrick Sweeney or Andrew Woodworth, EveryLibrary, 21 October 2015.  I can no longer find it on the Internet.  That is a tactic American Library Association itself uses, such as when its so-called Office for Intellectual Freedom, with which Andy Woodworth collaborated on Banned Books Week, removed a model policy telling librarians to ignore child pronography, after I and others exposed it, of course.

So EveryLibrary has something to hide.  I just happened to have made the only remaining copy about three years ago, shown above.

Anyone or any politician getting pressure from EveryLibrary AstroTurfed campaigns should know EveryLibrary acts with dirty hands:


—
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The Parent Trap: ALA Uses Banned Books Week to Ridicule Patrons Complying with ALA Materials Reconsideration Policies

ALA's "Think for
Yourself" Robot
The American Libraries Association [ALA] sets up parents for ridicule, then leads the charge in ridiculing them using propaganda techniques.  "Banned Books Week" [BBW] is the ALA creation it uses to lead the deceptive and disgraceful effort to ridicule people.  It wants people to ignore what the US Supreme Court said or even what the ALA's creator of BBW said about legally keeping inappropriate material from children.  The ALA cannot be trusted by local communities.


The ALA Uses BBW for Propaganda Purposes

The ALA uses BBW that it created on its own for propaganda purposes.  It talks about hundreds of banned books, yet the last book banned in the USA was Fanny Hill in 1963, about half a century ago.  For example, see "2010 Banned Books Week - Top Ten Banned and Challenged Books for 2009," by American Library Association, OIFTube, 24 September 2010.

Isn't it propaganda for the nation's self-arrogated leader in censorship to list hundreds of books "banned" in 2009 when the last book ban occurred in 1963?  The goal is to convince people not to keep children from inappropriate material since that would make them "censors."  What is the evidence?  Read on for just the latest example.


How the ALA Sets Up Parents for Ridicule

The ALA sets up parents for ridicule.  It does this by advising libraries to create, maintain, and exercise so-called "materials reconsideration policies."  They should really be called "leading with the chin policies" since the ALA sets up people to get whacked merely for complying with the policy and filing a complaint as directed.

The ALA created these policies to stop the removal of books by individual librarians reacting to patron complaints by removing materials.  The ALA then guides libraries on how to promote the policies to the public and the media.  For example, the ALA guidance says, emphasis in original:

What does the library do if someone complains about something in its collection?  We take such concerns very seriously. First, we listen. We also have a formal review process in which we ask you to fill out a special form designed to help us understand your concerns. Anyone who makes a written complaint will receive a response in writing.

But that is patently false in spirit when viewed in context of the ALA's latest BBW propaganda.  Recall the ALA propaganda I linked above:

ALA Graphic Showing Claim of Up to 460 Books Banned in 2009
"In 2009, 460 books were banned or challenged in the United States," says the ALA.  That may be true, but only if 460 of the 460 were challenges and not bans.

ALA Graphic Characterizing Policy Challenges as "Demands to remove books"
"460 demands to remove books from schools, libraries and bookstores," is the next ALA statement, as shown above.  Setting aside the ALA's questionable mission creep into bookstores, notice how proper filings for relief under materials reconsideration policies are characterized as "demands to remove books."

Now watch as the ALA performs the propagandistic coup of subtly claiming any and all attempts to seek compliance under the ALA material reconsideration policies are really attempts at censorship.


The ALA Ridiculing Parents

The ALA, having set up the mechanism of "materials reconsideration policies," then leads the effort in ridiculing anyone who avails themselves of the ALA-inspired policies:

ALA Graphic Ridiculing Anyone Who Followed ALA-Inspired "Materials Reconsideration Policies"
"460 persons or groups who believed that they should decide for others what they could read," says the ALA as pictured above.

So, the ALA directs libraries to utilize "Materials Reconsideration Policies," then it leads the effort to ridicule anyone who avails himself of such policies.  Merely for complying with the ALA-inspired policy, you supposedly "believe you can decide for others what they could read."  And all the while the ALA is in reality deciding for others what they can read, namely, anything.

The ALA goes so far as to say challenges are "a threat to freedom of speech and choice."  Comply with a materials reconsideration policy the ALA recommends and you are suddenly labeled a threat to freedom of speech and choice because you supposedly believe you can decide for others what they can read.  Do you understand the game the ALA is playing?  Is this not propaganda?


Jamming / Ridicule = Deceptive / Disgraceful

The particular propagandistic technique being used by the ALA in this case is called "jamming" (more here:  "Effect of Jamming, is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof").  Essentially, if you ridicule everyone each time, eventually people will stop placing themselves in the position of being ridiculed.

Alinsky Rule 5
"Ridicule is Man's
Most Potent Weapon"
Further, Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals said, in Rule 5, "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. ....  [Y]ou do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments."  And the ALA uses ridicule for this very purpose, as a weapon to thwart efforts to legally protect children from inappropriate material.  The ALA's moral argument is its BBW 2010 theme, namely, "Think for yourself and let others do the same."

See the graphic to the right for Alinsky Rule 5?  See how ridicule is used to change perceptions?  Is that a fair portrayal?  No, it is not; rather, it is disrespectful.  Similarly, is it a fair portrayal when the ALA says all "460 persons or groups ... believed that they should decide for others what they could read"?  No, it is not; rather, it is disrespectful.  Worse, since the ALA created the mechanism for filing complaints in the first place, its ridicule of everyone actually complying with its mechanism is particularly deceptive and disgraceful.

Does the US Supreme Court or BBW's founder have the same view as the ALA?  No.


The US Supreme Court and BBW's Creator Show the ALA is Wrong

The US Supreme Court has decided some cases that imply, if not show, that book challenges can be for legitimate reasons.
"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."
"Petitioners rightly possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries.  But that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner.  ....  Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas.  ....  On the other hand, respondents implicitly concede that an unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar."

Even BBW's founder and former four decade de facto ALA leader Judith Krug said books may be removed from school libraries in the right circumstances:
"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."

Certainly the ALA would not characterize the Justices of the US Supreme Court as censors, would it?  And Judith Krug is not a threat to freedom of speech and choice because she believes she can decide for others what they can read, is she?

No.  Similarly, people who file complaints in compliance with policy should not be mischaracterized by the ALA. 


Conclusion

The ALA directs local libraries to create materials selection policies.  It then ridicules anyone availing themselves of the policy calling them censors, threats to freedom of speech and choice, etc.  It does this intentionally with the propagandistic purpose of intimidating communities into stopping or preventing in the first place efforts by community members to seek compliance with library policies, legal cases, and common sense that legally protects children from inappropriate material.

Significantly, it uses "Banned Book Week" as the focal point for aiming the ridicule at the community.  The latest example of this can be seen in "2010 Banned Books Week - Top Ten Banned and Challenged Books for 2009" as discussed above.

The ALA cannot be trusted.  Its propagandistic efforts are designed to fool local communities and media into leaving children exposed to inappropriate material it would be legal to prevent.

Banned Books Week is the ALA's primary vehicle for pushing this propaganda.  While this may be my point of view, a simple look at the ALA policies and the latest BBW propaganda will make the point very clear.  On the one hand, "We take such concerns very seriously," while on the other, the ALA obviously does not take the concerns seriously:  "460 persons or groups ... believed that they should decide for others what they could read."  It's the perfect "parent trap."

In the end, isn't it the ALA that's deciding what others could read?  "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny.  ....  [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others."  Please comment below.


NOTE ADDED 9 JUNE 2011:

Look, the library community agrees it's not all black and white as the ALA's OIF tries to make it appear:
  • "Surreptitious Censorship," by Will Manley, Will Unwound, 8 June 2011.
    Intellectual freedom is often presented as a black and white issue.  You are either a supporter of intellectual freedom or you are a censor.  There seems to be no middle ground.

NOTE ADDED 30 AUGUST 2011:

I am not the only one pointing out how the ALA labels everyone as the bad guy:
  • "My Problem with Banned Books Week," by Rory Litwin, Library Juice, 28 August 2011:
    My problem with Banned Books Week is one that is probably shared by some conservatives, and it has to do with the loose definition of what a "banned book" is, and what a "challenged book" is.  ....  The Banned Books Week project, well-intended as it may be, is a propaganda exercise that fails to model good standards for democratic communication.

    ....

    School districts have policies in place for reviewing challenges to books on the basis of age-appropriateness.  Challenged books are reviewed and evaluated by committees that are charged with that responsibility, and then the school district makes an official decision regarding the book.  Regardless of what the school's decision turns out to be, regardless of its reasonableness or unreasonableness, and regardless of the objectivity or bias within the decision-making process in a specific case, all challenges to a book by a parent get counted as an attempt at book banning.

    Personally, I agree with intellectual freedom orthodoxy that says that one family should not have the right to determine what other students are taught, and this is part of what public education is.  But when a book is challenged and reviewed on the grounds of age-appropriateness, it is ultimately not the family that brought the challenge that makes the decision.  The decision is made by the educational institution itself.  ....  But the decision about whether a book should remain a part of the curriculum or not is ultimately made by the public institution that put the book in the curriculum in the first place, which means that book challenges happen as a part of a process that the institution puts in place in order to get feedback from the community on the curriculum.  ...."

NOTE ADDED 4 SEPTEMBER 2018:

This publication has been republished in full in another publication:

“Banned Books Week Is Propaganda.” Banned Books: At Issue Education. Ed. Marcia Amidon Lusted. New York, NY: Greenhaven Publishing, 2018. 34-39. Print.



.
Posted by at 11 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Phyllis Schlafly Exposes ALA Fraud; Banned Books Week is Ridiculous Event; Censorship Claims are Fraudulent

Phyllis Schlafly has exposed American Library Association [ALA] fraud regarding Banned Books Week [BBW] and false claims of censorship.  She is on the left in the picture at right (credit) with the former de facto leader of the ALA, the very person who created BBW.

See (or hear): "The Silliest Celebration," by Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, 4 December 2009:

The Silliest Celebration

A few weeks ago, the American Library Association announced with much fanfare that it was celebrating the ridiculous event called “Banned Books Week.” This announcement accused Americans of being “zealots and bigots who live in fear of discourse” and of being “screamers and book banners and book burners.” This Association arranged events and set up displays at libraries all over the country to pretend we have a problem with censorship.

The American Library Association puts out a list of books that it claims are being censored, which is a fraud because only government can engage in censorship and I assure you that our government is not censoring books. A so-called list of “banned books” was created by crying “censorship” anytime library patrons or parents of public school children complain about risque books being given to their children. The American Library Association claims that there were 186 cases of supposed censorship last year. But those were merely cases of ordinary people filing complaints with schools or libraries. Nearly all of these challenges to books took place at schools, and the rest of the complaints involved books available in the youth or children’s section of public libraries. These complaints had nothing to do with any book read by an[y] adult. These people accused of being “book banners” are just ordinary parents who want to limit their own children’s exposure to material they consider harmful or obscene.

Banned Books Week is not a celebration of free speech. It's a way for leftwing bureaucrats to bully ordinary citizens by stigmatizing those who complain with nasty names such as ‘bigots,’ ‘screamers,’ and ‘book burners’. The purpose is to intimidate parents from ever complaining about books that are given to their own children.

Listen to the Audio version of this commentary.
Labels: , ,
posted by Eagle at 12/04/2009 07:28:00 AM

NOTE ADDED 6 SEPTEMBER 2016:

I have updated hyperlinks that no longer work as expected.
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)