Showing posts with label GayMarriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GayMarriage. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

On Removing Books About Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage

A lot of what I do regarding libraries is behind the scenes.  For example, a women asked me for assistance in having a book about homosexuality and same sex marriage removed from a public library.  I advised her she will most likely be unsuccessful and specified why.  She said she would drop the challenge.  I have no doubt that I averted that book challenge.  I do this frequently enough to have put a dent in American Library Association's annual tally of challenged books!

Here's our conversation, edited to remove personally identifiable details:

Dear Mr. Kleinman,

I recently brought home from our library in ***, **, a cute looking picture book for my 5 year old called, "***" by *** ***.  When I read it however I saw that it talks about different types of families including those with 2 dads and 2 moms.  Thankfully, I saw this before my children read it and I will not show it to them.  My question is, "What do I do with it now?"  I object morally to children seeing this book.  I know it would be wrong to "lose" it or deface it.  Besides, my library location alone had about *** copies!  I have considered including a piece of paper in it that says something like, "Every child has a mother and a father."  Would that be legal or illegal?  Is there something more effective I can do to remove this book and others like it.  Incidentally, gay marriage is now legal in **, thanks to Federal court ruling, so I don't think the library will care if I object to it.

I have already contacted *** and *** and they said they could not advise me.

Thank you,

*** ***



Dear Mrs. ***,

Thank you for contacting SafeLibraries!  I’ll be happy to advise you in this matter.

First, there’s a difference between public and school libraries.  Based on my understanding of what I read, the library involved is a public library.  Know that getting books removed from public libraries is a whole lot harder than getting them removed from school libraries.  In my fifteen years of doing what I do, I have helped get books removed from school libraries, but never from public libraries.

The issue of homosexuality is separate and apart from the issue of library book selection policies.  Libraries do have book selection policies that must be followed and that can be used to have books removed, but I know of no book selection policies that exclude the issue of homosexuality per se.  Yes, many books dealing with the issue of homosexuality also contain material that is pervasively vulgar.  On the issue of vulgarity, books can successfully be removed from schools under the 1982 US Supreme Court of Board of Education v. Pico.  But not on the issue of homosexuality.  I have not read the book in question, but if it deals with homosexuality and is not pervasively vulgar, the book likely does not violate any library's book selection policy.  If it does not violate the library's policy, the library will not remove it.

You are correct not to deface the book or disappear it.  Others have tried that and it usually results in very negative consequences.  I have written about a few of such cases.

As to putting notes in the book, it will make you feel better but it will have no effect and will not stop people reading the book.  Yet it runs the risk of being traced back to you, again resulting in negative consequences.

You asked if there is an effective means to remove such books from the library.  The answer is it depends, but it is extremely unlikely.  In my opinion, only if you live in an area where the majority of people—including the majority of the library board—oppose homosexuality will you have any possibility of removing a book about homosexuality discussed in a non-vulgar manner.

If that book is non-vulgar, and given what you said about your state's law on gay marriage, it is my opinion that 1) the book will never be removed from the library, and 2) if you attempt to have the book removed or take any action in any other way, the library will make hay out of that, mock and vilify you, and use it as a reason to fund raise and make more of such books available at the library.  The end result is you'll be bullied terribly by the library and more people will read more material of the kind you oppose.

The library would be wrong to bully, but that's the technique libraries are trained to use by the American Library Association, that's what they all do, so I'm fairly certain that's what will happen to you.

In such a case as you have described as I understand it, my opinion would be to do nothing.

You have had the good fortune to reach out for help before acting.  Usually people act, get in trouble, then reach out for help.  By then it is too late to help if one of the planks of their complaint was moral opposition to homosexuality.  Even if they follow advice to drop such opposition as being not supported by the law, the library continues to use that initial complaint as a means for ridicule.

While I realize I may be providing advice that does not thrill you, I believe it to be accurate advice based on years of experience with these very same issues in a variety of settings.  So consider what I have said and act as you see fit.  If you do decide to go ahead by, say, filing a materials reconsideration request, I'll help guide you, but I'll continue to be frank about the absence of any likely chance for success.

On a side note, I like your email and I like my response.  I would like to remove all personally identifying material, including even the state, and publish both the email and my response on SafeLibraries to help more people similarly situated.  May I have your permission to do that?  Remember, I’ll leave out all personally identifying information, likely even the title/author of the book and the other organizations you contacted.

Again, thank you for contacting SafeLibraries.  Contact us any time you wish for any reason related to libraries.



Dear Mr. Kleinman,

Thank you for your prompt and thorough response!  You have been very helpful.  Yes, I give you permission to share this email exchange on SafeLibraries, provided my name and city are removed.

Sincerely,

*** ***


Thursday, May 19, 2011

Anti-American Indoctrination in Public Schools

Is there a liberal agenda indoctrinating children in public schools?  Are some public schools teaching anti-Americanism?  Are they teaching children to defy their parents or commit illegal acts?  Food for thought, hopefully representing a range of political thought:
"Analyze the major factors that drove United States imperialism."

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

ALA Trifecta: Socialized Medicine, Gay Marriage, and Animal Cruelty Depictions

What do socialized medicine, gay marriage, and animal cruelty depictions have to do with public libraries? Nothing. But that does not stop the American Library Association [ALA] from officially supporting all three in an ALA trifecta.

As reported in "Librarians for Terror," by Lee Kaplan, FrontPage Magazine, 17 August 2004:

Dr. Stephen Karetzky, a noted librarian, wrote more than 20 years ago about the ALA's embracing, Soviet-style totalitarianism in the American library system in his book, Not Seeing Red: American Librarianship and the Soviet Union, 1917-1960. He contends that the ALA has always advanced radical socialist doctrine as being positive.... Library Science is closely tied in with today's university atmosphere where Marxism now thrives....

Is he right? Consider the following. It is not proof positive, but it may help to inform:

None of that has anything to do with public libraries, despite what the American Library Users Association says.

What say you?

.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Slippery Slopes Okay for Gays, But Not Kids, Not National Security, According to the American Library Association

The American Library Association [ALA] is at it again, promoting social engineering that has nothing to do with libraries. Gay marriage is the ALA's latest love: "This time it seems the hot topic is going to be same-sex marriage."

The Annoyed Librarian takes apart the ALA's latest escapade phrase by phrase. In doing so she points out the "slippery slope" the ALA uses to claim any social engineering whatsoever can be justified by claiming potential involvement of "library workers or library users." That means everybody.
"WHEREAS, same-sex couples, including those who are library workers or library users, who live in states where only heterosexual couples may wed legally do not receive the same rights, including library privileges for partners, family and medical leave, tax equity, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, insurance and retirement benefits, family health care coverage, housing benefits, tuition remission benefits, adoption or birth leave;"
My goodness, they're reaching here. Since there are librarians in every state, then any laws affecting librarians in any way (and not just as librarians) is relevant for the ALA to comment upon. That's the typical argument of the radicals, the slippery slope that makes everything relevant. Very convenient.

Source: "ALA 2009: The ALA Council and Same Sex Marriage," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 8 July 2009.

This got me thinking. What is a "slippery slope"? Wikipedia defines it this way: "In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy."

A fallacy! Does the ALA employ this fallacy by warning against slippery slopes?

The ALA decries slippery slopes any time it opposes something that impinges on its social engineering efforts. Here's a peek into the ALA's mind:

Peek for yourself:

"Officially Speaking," by Kathleen T. Horning, ALSConnect, December 2005, v.3, no.4:
As I compose this column, the twenty-third annual Banned (and Challenged, in some jurisdictions) Books Week, the last full week in September, is in full swing. My theory is that we are beginning to see the result of descending the slippery slope we have so long feared: would-be censors in cities and counties that have enacted filtering provisions are emboldened to continue their quest to restrict the choices of young readers.

"FBI Seeks to Search Journalist's Archives for Classified Documents," by ALA, American Libraries, 21 April 2006:
Once you begin taking records out of library archives that researchers rely on for free inquiry and research purposes, it would be very difficult not to see it as a slippery slope toward government controlling research in higher education and our collective understanding of American history....

"Judith Krug: Tribute and Thoughts," by Michael Golrick, Thoughts From a Library Administrator, 17 April 2009:
The next head of the OIF *must* continue to express unqualified support for all that the First Ammendment [sic] stands for. To do anything less will allow us to slide down a slippery slope.

Is there another view?

The Annoyed Librarian and I are not the only ones criticizing the ALA for its fallacious slippery slope arguments. Here are others:

"James Taranto Mocks ALA Ethics And Rightly So; ALA Leadership 'Blatantly Violates Ethics,'" by SafeLibraries, SafeLibraries, 6 February 2009:
Now, we know what you're thinking: Surely in this case an exception is in order. Revealing the story didn't do Sullenberger any harm, and it was an inspiration to us all. But this is a slippery slope. Today it's Sullenberger, tomorrow no one's privacy will be safe. Maybe the next victim will be some innocent terrorist checking out books on how to make bombs, or a poor pervert who just wants to look at porn. Once you start cutting ethical corners, you're on the way to total moral breakdown.

"Culture of Fear," by Gregory McClay, The Notebook (SHUSH), 12 May 2007, Comment 25:
And spare me the slippery slope. It slides both ways. There have been cases where library staff have filed sexual harassment charges because the porn viewing got so bad and management wouldn’t do anything. That’s a little more severe then a book challenge.

Teen Maintains Stance Against Disputed Books; High-Schooler Says Decision to Have Titles on Shelves is 'Against the Values of Carroll County,'" by Gina Davis, The Baltimore Sun, 25 January 2006.
[Westminster High School junior Joel] Ready said he hopes people will not be deterred by charges of censorship and will continue to object to books they believe are inappropriate for schools.
"I'm not convinced there is an ultimate slippery slope," he said. "Just because we're not sure where this could end doesn't mean we should do nothing. We're never going to stop drug use or end violence, but that doesn't stop us from trying."

"Laurie's Noble Crusade," by Mike Masterson, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 4 April 2005:
Yes, I am well aware of the "slippery slope" arguments that are raised when humans try to restrict free expression. But there also have to be logical boundaries in our society. And I’m one who dearly values common sense as well as decency and taste when it comes to drawing reasonable lines for our children’s sake.

What do you think? Another double standard?

.