Showing posts with label AmericanLibraries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AmericanLibraries. Show all posts

Monday, July 18, 2016

American Library Association Promotes Black Lives Matter Hate Group In Public Schools

The American Library Association promotes the "Black Lives Matter" hate group in public schools.

[That BLM is a hate group is evident from its repeated calls to kill police officers, along with the murders of multiple police officers.  That's my opinion.  I leave the proof to other reporters.  Here's just one recent report: "Hours Before Officers Were Gunned Down in Dallas, Louis Farrakhan Posted This Shocking Message of Racism and Violence," by Jason Howerton, The Blaze, 8 July 2016.]

Here are examples of ALA's promotion of the BLM hate group in public schools:

ALA's so-called Office for Intellectual Freedom:

ALA's American Libraries membership magazine:

ALA's @ALALibrary on Twitter:

The San Francisco Unified School District library developed a LibGuide on teaching the #BlackLivesMatter movement, including lesson plans, readings, poetry, and official case documents as well as background information.
Librarians are peddlers of empathy. We understand that reading is a chemical reaction between reader and writer producing a visceral engagement with the characters that allows us to live the lives of others, if only for for [sic] the space of a novel. We know that when we give a book to a patron, it can be at once an act of revolution, a strike against ignorance, a catalyst for change, a necessary escape, a life-saving event, a clarion call, a moment of peace, or simply a riveting read. Whatever it turns out to be though, it is always founded in empathy. As readers, each book allows us to, at turns, discover, reaffirm or reimagine what it means to be human.
In the wake of the Ferguson verdict and in solidarity with the growing #BlackLivesMatter movement, it is empathy that we need more than ever. ....
As YA librarians and as educators, I feel strongly that it is an essential part of our calling to do more than simply recommend books to our teenage patrons; we must promote, persuade, and provoke our young readers to pick up those books that broaden and challenge our understanding of what it means to be another and to be ourselves. .... And change must come. And it will come because reading is an act of communication that can and does open minds and hearts, transcending our often irrational and unfounded fears to create newfound empathy and compassion.
....
Enter literature and librarians. We can give our communities the very stories that provide the context and, most importantly, the emotional connection so crucial to empathy and change. ....
....

Yesterday, I wrote about the duty all librarians and educators share to instill empathy and compassion in our young readers by actively promoting books that engage and educate them in the experiences of others. .... 
....
.... For those of you seeking more resources (including non-fiction, media, and teaching materials) related to the events in Ferguson and the Black Lives Matter movement, check out Oakland Public Library’s excellent resource guide and Teaching #Ferguson.
....
Given that I know 1) ALA allows, supports, and hides homophobia, which is hate, and given that I know 2) ALA supports the interests of Islamic terror, which is hate, and given that I know 3) ALA acolytes try anonymously oppressing the sales of a book exposing ALA's facilitation of child porn in public libraries, which is hate, I can add this fourth means of support for hate, 4) actually promoting the hate group Black Lives Matter in public schools, and truly say it is my opinion that ALA loves hate.

—

NOTE ADDED 20 JULY 2016:

Looks like I hit a sore spot for librarians pushing the Black Lives Matter hate group into schools as one does the usual—attack the messenger and ignore the issue:


NOTE ADDED 22 JULY 2016:

And they just keep pushing the hate into public schools, just keep training school librarians how to keep pushing the hate on students—notice the training for students is one sided, the side of hate:
Here's another organized group (also in Illinois) teaching school children that Americans are fundamentally racist:
Here are librarians being trained by the School Library Journal on how to insert "social justice" issues into public schools and libraries even if some educators/librarians are not willing to go along:

Many librarians and children's literature scholars of color are motivated by social justice imperatives. They theorize on and critique children's literature as a way to normalize conversations about cultural diversity in kid's lit (and by extension, kid's services) as a way to move diversity imperatives beyond the margins. Many want to change how public librarians and educators use and perceive diverse children's literature in their day to day today practice-- ideally, in ways to support social justice. But, this imperative is not felt by all. What type of strategies and resources can you recommend for those working towards normalizing conversations about equity in children's lit?
Source:
I presume seeing people are just letting librarians push the Black Lives Matter hate on students with no one even noticing, librarians are upping their game to push more hate:
  • "Libraries 4 Black Lives,"Amita Lonial (IL),  Amy Sonnie (CA), Jessica Anne Bratt (MI), Sarah Lawton (WI): "Recent events have highlighted the undeniable travesty of systemic racism in America. This 'call to action' unifies library efforts and demonstrates our unequivocal professional commitment to social justice and equity."

NOTE ADDED 12 AUGUST 2016:

And the hits keep coming:




URL of this page: safelibraries.blogspot.com/2016/07/ALA-loves-hate.html


On Twitter: @ALALibrary @AmLibraries @OIF @YALSA #BlackLivesMatter #LibrariesRespond

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Saturday, June 6, 2009

ALA Gets It Right Again; American Libraries Magazine First to Get West Bend Story Straight

For the second post in a row, I have to congratulate the American Library Association [ALA]. Beverly Goldberg of American Libraries, the ALA's monthly membership magazine, accurately reported crucial information in the West Bend, WI, library matter, and the truth makes all the difference. See "Milwaukee Group Seeks Fiery Alternative to Materials Challenge," by Beverly Goldberg, American Libraries Online, 3 June 2009.

There is the significant issue of whether or not a materials reconsideration request was dropped by the complainant or by the library. The complainant says it was not and the library says it was because of various public statements made by the complainant. Four library board members were not reappointed precisely because they failed to respond to the request, so the question of whether the request was dropped and by whom is important. The complainant has not dropped her request that was accepted and already under review by the library. After many months, she still awaits an answer.

The library was able to use the School Library Journal to tell a different story:

"These were four very qualified people who collectively have a lot of experience on these issues," says library director Michael Tyree about the board members who were up for reappointment. "They were doing what they were supposed to do—wait for the Maziarkas to resubmit their reconsideration for library materials."

....

The couple ... is also asking the library to place warning labels on the books, as well as install Internet filters.

As a result of that change, Tyree says the library was advised by the city attorney to have the Maziarkas re-file their complaint. They have yet to do so—and instead, they’ve launched an online petition outlining their new demands.

Now in a perfect example of projection, listen to what the library says next:

"They’re very skillful at playing the political game," says Tyree, referring to the fact that the book challenge has ended up pitting city council members against library supporters—and has gained nationwide attention, with the American Library Association, the American Bookseller Foundation for Free Expression, the National Coalition Against Censorship, and the School of Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee weighing in their support for the library board members.

Source: "West Bend City Council Fails to Reinstate Library Board Members," by Debra Lau Whelan, School Library Journal, 20 May 2009.

Regarding playing the political game, Tryee attempts to claim the complainant dropped the request, as shown above. But Beverly Goldberg of the ALA gets it right:

Ironically, four of the trustees were denied reappointment in April by the city council because they did not comply with the Maziarkas’ reconsideration requests and are serving until their successors are appointed.

"[T]hey did not comply with the Maziarkas’ reconsideration requests...." Exactly. The ALA gets it right.

Do you see what else makes the Beverly Goldberg article accurate? It does not raise the LGBT issues dropped long ago but raised again and again to distract people from the actual issues involved. What a breath of fresh air. I look forward to reading more of Beverly Goldberg's articles.

Having been critical of American Libraries whitewashing rape in the past, I am today giving credit where credit is due. Congratulations to the ALA for getting the West Bend story straight. The library dropped the matter, the complainant did not, and the ALA says so.

I just congratulated Deborah Caldwell-Stone of the ALA, and now I'm congratulating Beverly Goldberg. This is starting to become a pattern.

.
Posted by at 10 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 20, 2009

LISNews Disses Judith Krug Unwittingly

LISNews is an excellent news source for those interested in libraries. In addition to its daily activities, it podcasts weekly on library issues. Unwittingly, but justifiably, it mocked the American Library Association's [ALA] former de facto leader in the very publication dedicated to that leader.

The most recent podcast was "dedicated to recently departed freedom crusader Judith Krug." See "LISTen: An LISNews.org Podcast -- Episode #68," by Stephen Michael Kellat, LISNews, 19 April 2009.

Judith Krug was the de facto leader of the ALA for about 40 years. Thanks in part to her ACLU heritage, she single-handedly changed libraries so they no longer protect children from inappropriate material like they used to.

For example, she alone created "Banned Books Week," ostensibly to decry censorship, even though no books have been banned in the USA for half a century and it is nearly impossible to do so now for reasons that have nothing to do with the ALA. Supposedly, according to Banned Books Week material, "Censorship by librarians of constitutionally protected speech, whether for protection or for any other reason, violates the First Amendment." More ominously, "Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove or limit access to reading materials, to censor content in schools, to label 'controversial' views, to distribute lists of 'objectionable' books or authors, and to purge libraries. .... The problem is not only one of actual censorship."

I say ostensibly because "actual censorship" by librarians, citizens, and local governments is impossible by definition; the real goal is different. The real goal is to ensure children retain access to inappropriate material by making false and scary claims about censorship. As one former ALA Councilor Jessamyn West rightly noted, "It also highlights the thing we know about Banned Books Week that we don't talk about much — the bulk of these books are challenged by parents for being age-inappropriate for children. While I think this is still a formidable thing for librarians to deal with, it's totally different from people trying to block a book from being sold at all."

By calling efforts of some librarians, citizens, and local government officials to keep children from inappropriate material "censorship," the ALA is misleading the entire nation. And in light of US v. ALA, which the ALA lost big in 2003 in the US Supreme Court, the ALA's actions to mislead are evidently intentional, unless the Court itself is also censorious: "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."

The ALA does not agree; protecting children from inappropriate material is "censorship," according to the ALA. Now what is more authoritative, the ALA or the US Supreme Court?

Did you know that US Supreme Court case that allows Internet filters in public libraries to protect children (hence, Children's Internet Protection Act) was Judith Krug's biggest disappointment in life? The only means the ALA is forced to allow to effectively protect children is her biggest disappointment? Is it any wonder why the ALA intentionally misleads the public and the media? (And Judith Krug "'invented what they now call media training,' said Art Plotnik, former editor of American Libraries.")

Perhaps her greatest disappointment was the 2003 Supreme Court ruling that the Children's Internet Protection Act was constitutional, ending a battle over internet [sic] filtering that cost ALA over a million dollars. Adults, the court decided, could ask that filters be turned off for unrestricted access and Congress could require libraries to install filtering in exchange for funding. It was a decision that Krug had fought hard.

Source: "A Tribute to Judith Krug," by Leonard Kniffel, AL Inside Scoop, 21 April 2009.

But I digress.

Censorship has nothing to do with keeping inappropriate material from children. Nothing. Protecting children from such material is common sense, and it is legal. It is not censorship. The US Supreme Court already addressed that issue. Why does the ALA continue to raise it? Why does the ALA continue to misled local media, communities, and those who guide local communities? Why do people think the ALA is authoritative anymore?

So what is censorship?
Cries of censorship rang out over a relatively small, minor situation. .... [I]t is called censorship when a selection of LGBT materials becomes harder to access within Amazon's catalog. While the English word "censorship" might be at the core in the Amazon story and others, it might be better to term such "inference of intended suppression." Censorship more properly involves a government using its coercive powers to dictate what can be said, written, printed, or shown in a media form.

As Dan Gerstein said, "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." Does that not perfectly describe the false claims of the ALA? (Speaking of stifling speech, get a load of a public library in West Bend, WI, refusing to hear a citizen complaint: "West Bend Library Board Shuns Public Hearing Over Porn.")

So censorship defined "more properly" has nothing to do with what the ALA is claiming, what Banned Books Week is espousing, what Judith Krug has created. As Thomas Sowell put it, Banned Books Week should be called "National Hogwash Week."

The definition of censorship given above about a government using coercive powers is relatively accurate, but who said it? Who defined censorship in a way that is truthful and in total contradiction with the ALA's claims as promulgated by Judith Krug's creations? Believe it or not, it is the very source that dedicated the podcast to Judith Krug. It was LISNews! It was Stephen Michael Kellat! Listen for yourself. I'll have to add him to my "Good Librarians" page along with Jessamyn West, who's already there with others.

That's right, LISNews has dedicated a podcast to Judith Krug, then went on to define censorship accurately in a manner that total refutes Judith Krug's life work to mislead people about censorship. (She even made racist statements when parents in Howell, MI, who attempted to keep public school children from reading school books containing bestiality.) An "inference of intended suppression" is twisted by the ALA into "censorship" in a effort to ensure children retain access to inappropriate material. But the two are "totally different," as Jessamyn West said.

Thank you, LISNews, for justifiably producing a podcast that contains such truth, such delicious irony. By defining censorship accurately as you have, you have struck a silver stake in the heart of Banned Books Week, in the very podcast dedicated to its creator, even while praising her. That is what I mean by the title of this post. Truly outstanding.

For the record, I am sad to hear of Judith Krug's death and particularly her illness. No one will ever replace her at the ALA. I looked forward to speaking with her; she never responded to my emails. I have such respect for her effectiveness in creating and promoting ALA policy vis-a-vis children that I applied to take classes on library law directly from her, among others. I wanted to meet her, to ask questions, to exercise my intellectual freedom. Alas, her Office for Intellectual Freedom refused me access repeatedly in a fashion that illustrates the ALA's hypocrisy perfectly and may have violated court rules. Apparently, some animals are more equal than others. I'll apply again for admittance to those classes, but they just won't be the same without Judith Krug.

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

Saturday, April 4, 2009

ALA Whitewashes Rape and Blames Child; Removes Discussion of ALA's Possible Culpability for Rape

Shockingly, or perhaps not, the American Library Association [ALA] has whitewashed a rape in a public library, then blamed the child victim calling him "intimidated." (This matter involves the rape in the New Bedford, MA, public library. There are other library rapes.)

In "Man Gets Life for Molesting Child in a Library," by the ALA, American Libraries, 3 April 2009, [INSERTION DATED 12 APRIL 2009: source is Google cache dated 4 April 2009,][INSERTION DATED 15 APRIL 2009: Google's cache is now dated 9 April and shows the updated article including rape, so I'm again finding a way to display the original article.] the ALA refuses to say what actually happened, namely, the little boy was raped. [INSERTION DATED 12 APRIL 2009: The article was edited by the ALA on 8 April 2009 and is now entitled, "Man Gets Life for Raping Child in a Library," by the ALA, American Libraries, 8 April 2009 as amended to remove molestation and add rape from original publication on 3 April 2009.] Instead, the much softer term, "molestation," was used. It's not only softer, it can be less serious. A molestation could be something as simple as an unwanted touching.

Compare the ALA's coverage of the "molestation" with other media reports:

That last link is by a library director who said, "Frankly, I'm almost surprised that [the ALA] mentioned it at all!" So am I. The ALA routinely ignores what it does not want people to hear.

And look how the ALA partially blamed the six year old victim:
"During the time of the attack, the boy’s mother was sitting at a computer terminal some 20 feet away from her child, who was apparently intimidated into keeping silent."

Gee, if only the boy didn't keep silent while he was being raped. Oh, I'm sorry, molested.

None of those media sources said anything about the boy being "intimidated." That was made up out of thin air by the ALA in an apparent effort to help excuse what happened and perhaps try to deflect people from thinking the ALA might somehow have been responsible.

The library itself and its adherence to ALA policies may have been partially responsible for the rape. I raised this possibility in an ALA forum over a year ago, but that forum has just recently been removed, deleted! All that appears now is this:



Here is a backup link I found that may or may not still work: "Response to Mass. Library Revisits Security after Child Rape," and here is what the forum used to say before the ALA deleted it from its original link:

I have a response to "Massachusetts Library Revisits Security after Child Molested," by the ALA, American Libraries, 8 February 2008.

I'm the person from SafeLibraries.org mentioned in the article. I give credit to American Libraries for being the first media report raising the filtering issue, at least that I've noticed.

Regarding Fulchino's statement regarding the existing filtering software being bypassed by the criminal, there are several problems. First, his library's web site states that it does not filter: "The Library cannot control and is not able to monitor any information on the Internet for either content or accuracy." The word "filter" does not even appear on that page ( http://www.ci.new-bedford.ma.us/Library/internetpolicy.html ). If filtering is being used, it is not mentioned on the library's web site.

Second, the criminal has been described as having a low IQ. One article said he, "has been diagnosed as developmentally disabled and suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder." If a "developmentally disabled" person with a low IQ can "bypass the settings," then it is obvious the filtering software being used, if indeed it is, is not the latest or is not being administered in an effective manner.

Whichever way you look at it, Fulchino's statements indicate a potential serious problem at the library, as if the rape and the "anything goes" Internet policy have not already made that obvious.

Thank you to American Libraries for bring his statements to the public's attention. Existing security measures including video cameras were a failure, as Fulchino admits. Should his advice to taken seriously again? If I were a citizen of New Bedford, I would demand a full and public investigation by a disinterested party based on the facts including Fulchino's admissions. The seriousness of the allegations and potential for future harm outweigh the perceived gains of possible coverups.

Now for anyone's interest, here is the letter I sent to the community:
Dear City Council President Jane L. Gonsalves,

The library rape of a six year old children is criminal. At this time, all efforts are concentrated on the victim and the criminal. But you are the city's leader. You have a responsibility to see the bigger picture. In this case, the bigger picture is this type of incident might happen again and again as a direct result of the library's "anything goes" Internet use policy.

Was the criminal using the Internet before the rape to view child p*rnography? The media did not address this. If he did, did the library attempt to stop him? The media did not address this. If not, why not? The media did not address this, but the answer is on the library's own web site, "The New Bedford Free Public Library only provides access to the Internet. The Library cannot control and is not able to monitor any information on the Internet for either content or accuracy." http://www.ci.new-bedford.ma.us/Library/internetpolicy.html

Did you know that is false? Did you know communities may filter all computers and the US Supreme Court has already found that constitutional? Did you know the ACLU and the courts have found filters so effective that they no longer block out health related web sites?

Worse, it is possible your library's policy has exposed it, its employees, and New Bedford to liability for failure to take action that might have prevented the child rape in the first place. A simple reading of the library policy tells me the child's rape was likely partially the responsibility of the library for having an anything goes policy and the community for failure to control its own library in the legal manner in which it may control its library. Indeed, I urge any legal action brought by the parents to include counts against the library and especially against the city for, among other things, a likely failure to enforce the library's enabling statute that I am sure does not say anything goes. Indeed I will actively attempt to contact the family's attorneys and advise them to consider the theory of liability I have outlined generally.

I thought you should consider this. You have the power to prevent future such instances by using every means possible to get your local library to apply filters to all Internet computers. Warning, the American Library Association is responsible for these anything goes policies, is specifically named by your library as its source for library policy, and will be sure to bring the full weight of its misinformation campaign to you if you do decide to protect your community's children instead of the ALA's policies.

Articles I am reading show the city is obviously thinking of ways to prevent this in the future, but all I see are methods of moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. For example, "privacy screens" do not function as claimed. Internet filters are the most effective means to resolve the situation, and that is precisely why the ALA attempts to convince people not to use them.

I will be happy to explain and source every statement I have made here. You have the legal means to remove the negative influence of the ALA from your library. It's a PUBLIC library, not an ALA library. Please let me know if I may assist.
_________________
http://SafeLibraries.org/ - Are Children Safe in Public Libraries
SafeLibraries Blog - http://SafeLibraries.blogspot.com/
Lastly, notice what I predicted in my letter to the Mayor of New Bedford has come true. I said, "Articles I am reading show the city is obviously thinking of ways to prevent this in the future, but all I see are methods of moving the deck chairs on the Titanic." The ALA article says, without criticism of any kind:
As a result of the attack, library trustees have modified NBPL’s patron behavior policy to prohibit adults from speaking to a minor inside the library “unless the adult is a parent, other close relative, or caregiver of the minor.” Officials also reconfigured the room in which the assault took place to maximize unobstructed sight lines.

Is that moving deck chairs on the Titanic or is that moving deck chairs? Did the ALA critically comment on the likely uselessness of those solutions at all or perhaps suggest Internet filters? Of course not. Besides, it's only a molestation that some intimidated kid invited on himself. No biggie.

Once again, the ALA has proven it is no longer authoritative and it cannot be trusted for truthful information.

.
Posted by at 10 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)