"Why is this happening? Why would private banks and other businesses force out paying customers like this and risk courting public backlash? Because it is in their interest to do so if they want to survive and thrive, and indeed they have little choice. These banks are not really fully “private actors,” as they are part of the managerial economy in a budding managerial party-state. The business of a managerial business is not business; it’s managerialism. And once more: there can be no neutral institutions in a party-state. The party-state’s enemies are the institution’s enemies, or the institution is an enemy of the party-state (which is not a profitable position to be in). This is what “reputational risk” means: the risk of appearing to be on the wrong side of the party line."
I am glad you are addressing these issues at this time. Over the weekend the "See You at the Library" event sponsored by the conservative publisher, "Brave Books," was launched. I have seen this event characterized by some librarians as promoted by "crackpots." Instead of dismissing these actual members of communities (whether we agree with them or not), we should recognize that they have a point of view. The kick-off event was initially cancelled due to safety concerns then allowed to occur. I looked at the website: https://bravebooks.us/pages/bb-story-hour . It seems a lot of people in many states participated. Coverage has mainly been in conservative outlets.
A lot of the controversy has been sparked by Emily Drabinski, the current ALA president, tweeting she is a lesbian Marxist. Most of the critics are about the Marxism. I realize Marxism does not mean communism and so do readers here at Heterodoxy, but in general people hear, "Marxism" and they think of Stalin or Putin. I voted for Emily. I think her focus on library workers has been fine. She was eloquent in an NBC news interview explaining --"Top librarian calls 'Marxist lesbian' tweet backlash 'regrettable'"--https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/american-library-association-president-marxist-lesbian-rcna98254 -- but more conservative outlets spun that interview a different way--"Self-declared 'Marxist' library group chief stunned by backlash as state pulls funding to ALA"--https://www.foxnews.com/us/self-declared-marxist-library-group-chief-stunned-backlash-state-pulls-funding-ala . We are not listening to everyone. We need to understand each other.
No, I have seen some coverage of the OIR statement but not an overview.
FL Senator Rubio signed a letter to IMLS about the OIR statement. The letter is not correct (IMLS does not fund ALA) to the extent it implies, but it shows the issue has reached the U.S. Senate.
Thanks Kathleen. It seems like public trust in our profession is beginning to unravel rapidly. I agree with Darryl (below) that some kind of formal diplomatic effort is needed to create some genuine dialogue and understanding regarding what people are concerned about.
Librarianship had a long way to go. Before the Coretta Scott King Award and Pura Bel Pre and Rainbow awards there was not much focus on more comprehensive literatures. Before SPECTRUM the ALA had little support to recruit a broader workforce. But we addressed these challenges and have worked to resolve them. I wish we could be proud of what we have done and not feel as if we will never be good enough. And expanding our commitment does not mean rejecting anything.
I feel like any censorship attempts at this time--from either end of the political spectrum-- are just playing into the hands of power. My impression is that the "powers that be"-- whether that is wealthy political donors or the "deep state"-- can easily switch sides to accomplish their objectives. So they can exploit conservativism and patriotism to gin up support for the Iraq War, and they can exploit "wokeism" to gain support for the war in Ukraine and the surveillance state. If conservatives start winning the censorship wars, they can easily switch back over to that side to further the surveillance state. So everyone should be very careful about advancing any kind of censorship agenda. This is why I am for RFK, Jr. in 2024-- as far as I know he is the best candidate in terms of fighting censorship and surveillance generally.
Aug 9, 2023Liked by Amy Girard, Bridget Wipf, Michael Dudley, Sarah Hartman-Caverly
Good essay. I agree that library neutrality is a means rather than an end, and that we need to better understand the ends that it serves. I also tend to agree with political and philosophical pluralism.
But I am not convinced that it is the end that we are looking for. Democracy and Liberalism seem more fundamental to me, and pluralism is a means to those ends or a consequence of them.
I know that this sounds pretty abstract. I should think it through at some point and try to explain the difference. Thank you for prompting me to do so.
Thanks John! I agree that liberalism and democracy are also essential considerations. I did situate my discussion of pluralism in terms of John Rawls' political liberalism so see them as very compatible. Pluralism is a value (a commons) that librarians can support and defend. However--much like broader social and political issues--the kind of political system we operate in is out of our control and direct influence; we can only do what we can to contribute to a political environment conducive to democracy.
Great article (or manifesto), Michael! Thanks for helping us think more deeply about neutrality, pluralism, and the purpose for which libraries should dedicate themselves. There truly is more incoherence and uncertainty about purpose now than in the past.
I just saw this post this morning on Civic Pluralism in The Liberal Patriot which speaks to the larger issue of depoliticizing life (and finding common ground in communities, where possible)--and understanding difference. In other words, living with pluralism.
Aug 9, 2023Liked by Michael Dudley, Amy Girard, Sarah Hartman-Caverly
I’m a little surprised that the lockstepped purveyors of anti-neutrality and/or critical theory have let this exist for almost 24 hours without showing up to denounce the author as a counter-revolutionary or petit bourgeois parasite. They are usually pretty vigilant.
These are the conversations we must have. If the value of librarians and the ALA accreditation of LIS programs becomes an issue, the long effort to have a set of programs that demonstrate self-assessment and internal review may disappear. I teach in Florida. It is currently required that public libraries be administered by people with an accredited degree. If states pull out of ALA or change laws, there could be a lot of disruption. I've worked in LIS education a long time and believe that the accreditation process has merit. But when I read discourse in conservative outlets (that librarians are mostly ignoring) I have concern that failure to listen may have unintended result. I listened online to the Montana vote. The ALA Chapter counselor did a fine job, but the public comments were assertive against ALA.
Aug 9, 2023Liked by Sarah Hartman-Caverly, Amy Girard, Michael Dudley, Bridget Wipf
Yes, the profession has become a smaller and smaller echo chamber with walls made of increasingly thick monument-grade granite, if you just sample the published ALA literature at semi-random since 1980. Ideological conservatives are as self-righteous and out of touch with reality as the critlib crowd in their own ways, but there is always the possibility of a conversation or series of conversations that might crack ice. Somebody has got to get some kind of open, public discussion to happen between some agreed-upon representatives. Jamie LaRue is pretty fair-minded, as is Dr. Emily Knox. If people like that could be empowered by the ALA as public envoys of librarianship of some kind willing to take input from those who actually fund libraries, they could do a lot of good. But the top leadership of the ALA is obviously being mislead by someone or they are too convinced of something to see that not everyone turning against what some libraries are doing can just be dismissed as knuckle-dragging, hateful fascists. I know because they’ve called me and they don’t just rant and rave. Their concern is not just “reactionary.”
Thank you Darryl. This is also something I address in my previous blog post, "The Certainty Trap" -- that people can have good faith objections to particular issues that have nothing to do with bigotry, but are nonetheless being condemned as such by some of our colleagues.
I am pretty sure they have decided to ignore this Substack after the first post because their counterarguments are weak (and/or don't look good to make in public) and/or they don't want to bring attention to dissenting voices.
Aug 9, 2023Liked by Michael Dudley, Bridget Wipf, Amy Girard
Thanks for this work, Michael, it has really helped me clarify my own inklings in this regard. I'd like to think we need a Heterodox Libraries conference, although that's what our association conferences are supposed to do--promote discussion amongst multiple viewpoints.
Regarding Emily Drabinski the ALA president, I am uncomfortable with one individual being the target of the criticism of ALA, as she is really only a symptom of the larger activist librarian tendency, and was voted in by her peers exactly because of that. For the record, though, I specifically voted for the ALA candidates who appeared the least activist according their platform statements.
Thank you Todd, glad to hear that. I think a conference would be a great idea! But yes, I'm also uncomfortable with the focus of so much criticism against Emily--I agree (I think like most people in this space) that I'm much more concerned about the direction of the organization generally than I am about its president's political philosophy.
Per your essay, the private political convictions of the ALA president should be irrelevant to ALA members b/c the ALA shouldn't take partisan political positions regardless of who is the president. I was glad that Emily stated that her politics should be distinguished from the policies of the ALA in her interview (by deleting her tweet, it seems like she is acknowledging that it was unfortunate to put her politics front and center when celebrating her victory).
However, her reasoning seems to differ from mine. Whereas I think that the ALA should simply refrain from partisanship as much as possible, Emily says the ALA should reflect the "collective" views of the membership. I don't know exactly what that means, but it seems to leave the door open for ALA endorsement of partisan or ideological views that are broadly shared by ALA members.
The ALA’s next challenge will be managing the loss of non-profit status that will eventually come when somebody hostile to the organization gets in power in the right place and sics the IRS on them.
A mean-spirited investigation might look at the ALA’s public statements and press releases, invited conference speakers, etc. and find the exact “evidence of political bias” that can wreck non-profit status. Then a whole new constellation of problems precipitates. Public money can’t be used to pay dues to PACs nor can public employees go to their conferences using travel budget.
That sucks. If such an effort succeeds, it will be such a waste of something with amazing potential to bring this country together rather than join the choir of division.
I agree with these comments about Emily Drabinski and the targeting of her--we discussed this briefly at our last Happy Hours meeting. I am very uncomfortable with targeting individuals even with those whose views I don't always agree with (though in Emily's case I believe she's advocated for better salaries and working conditions for library employees for quite a few years). I'm very sure I don't agree with her views in the #CritLib agenda, but that often gets tangled up with the other economic fairness agenda. Agree about the activism of a certain kind that's causing people to exit or look for alternatives. I think it's an interesting distinction to consider at least the HxA distinction between "advocacy" for the HxA core values, and activism around certain political views, political agendas, ideological movements, particularly manifested as part of one's official duties or on one's time. That's where "principled neutrality" in professional responsibilites matters, and as Michael has addressed here, within the larger civic culture of pluralism--which we're still exploring and I think has more potential to speak to a wider range of viewpoints.
Aug 9, 2023Liked by Michael Dudley, Bridget Wipf, Amy Girard
There are broader civic dialogue associations out there that are working to build bridges and dialogue, generally. Somehow we need to mirror that bridge-building in librarianship by whatever means we can.
However, I am trying to think of other professions right now with some groups that are splitting off because of the prevailing orthodoxy that's the new hegemony--I know of one, Society for Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science, formed by those formerly in The Society and Social Psychology. Lee Jussim was one of the movers in forming the new association and they are already publishing a new journal.
Thanks Michael for this piece-- i am planning to dig into it later.
Kat Rosenfield also recently wrote a post addressing neutrality in libraries--https://www.piratewires.com/p/the-burning-of-americas-library
And the piece I linked to yesterday-- https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/the-china-convergence?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web-- also addresses the neutrality question:
"Why is this happening? Why would private banks and other businesses force out paying customers like this and risk courting public backlash? Because it is in their interest to do so if they want to survive and thrive, and indeed they have little choice. These banks are not really fully “private actors,” as they are part of the managerial economy in a budding managerial party-state. The business of a managerial business is not business; it’s managerialism. And once more: there can be no neutral institutions in a party-state. The party-state’s enemies are the institution’s enemies, or the institution is an enemy of the party-state (which is not a profitable position to be in). This is what “reputational risk” means: the risk of appearing to be on the wrong side of the party line."
Excellent. Thank you for writing this.
Impressed by the 30 principles here-- quite thorough.
I am glad you are addressing these issues at this time. Over the weekend the "See You at the Library" event sponsored by the conservative publisher, "Brave Books," was launched. I have seen this event characterized by some librarians as promoted by "crackpots." Instead of dismissing these actual members of communities (whether we agree with them or not), we should recognize that they have a point of view. The kick-off event was initially cancelled due to safety concerns then allowed to occur. I looked at the website: https://bravebooks.us/pages/bb-story-hour . It seems a lot of people in many states participated. Coverage has mainly been in conservative outlets.
The outcome of ignoring pluralism can threaten the library ecosystem we all know. An article at the conservative website, "Louisiana Hayride," suggests that if libraries reject conservatives then why not close them, buy everyone an Amazon Prime subscription and a kindle? https://thehayride.com/2023/07/were-about-to-find-out-just-how-weird-louisianas-librarians-are/
A lot of the controversy has been sparked by Emily Drabinski, the current ALA president, tweeting she is a lesbian Marxist. Most of the critics are about the Marxism. I realize Marxism does not mean communism and so do readers here at Heterodoxy, but in general people hear, "Marxism" and they think of Stalin or Putin. I voted for Emily. I think her focus on library workers has been fine. She was eloquent in an NBC news interview explaining --"Top librarian calls 'Marxist lesbian' tweet backlash 'regrettable'"--https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/american-library-association-president-marxist-lesbian-rcna98254 -- but more conservative outlets spun that interview a different way--"Self-declared 'Marxist' library group chief stunned by backlash as state pulls funding to ALA"--https://www.foxnews.com/us/self-declared-marxist-library-group-chief-stunned-backlash-state-pulls-funding-ala . We are not listening to everyone. We need to understand each other.
Thanks Kathleen! Re: Brave Books - have you seen this? https://www.thefire.org/news/americas-public-libraries-must-not-take-arms-culture-war?fbclid=IwAR0Bu44vYCzbnU62Ij2llCscpq9kTnQxWs9PsbKe5kpGxMy4IGF6Jj9fduM
No, I have seen some coverage of the OIR statement but not an overview.
FL Senator Rubio signed a letter to IMLS about the OIR statement. The letter is not correct (IMLS does not fund ALA) to the extent it implies, but it shows the issue has reached the U.S. Senate.
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/07.28.23-Rubio-et-al-Letter-to-IMLS-re-religious-discrimination.pdf
Thanks Kathleen. It seems like public trust in our profession is beginning to unravel rapidly. I agree with Darryl (below) that some kind of formal diplomatic effort is needed to create some genuine dialogue and understanding regarding what people are concerned about.
Librarianship had a long way to go. Before the Coretta Scott King Award and Pura Bel Pre and Rainbow awards there was not much focus on more comprehensive literatures. Before SPECTRUM the ALA had little support to recruit a broader workforce. But we addressed these challenges and have worked to resolve them. I wish we could be proud of what we have done and not feel as if we will never be good enough. And expanding our commitment does not mean rejecting anything.
I feel like any censorship attempts at this time--from either end of the political spectrum-- are just playing into the hands of power. My impression is that the "powers that be"-- whether that is wealthy political donors or the "deep state"-- can easily switch sides to accomplish their objectives. So they can exploit conservativism and patriotism to gin up support for the Iraq War, and they can exploit "wokeism" to gain support for the war in Ukraine and the surveillance state. If conservatives start winning the censorship wars, they can easily switch back over to that side to further the surveillance state. So everyone should be very careful about advancing any kind of censorship agenda. This is why I am for RFK, Jr. in 2024-- as far as I know he is the best candidate in terms of fighting censorship and surveillance generally.
I am supporting RFKjr, too--he is addressing these issues--the only one.
I may just write him in if he doesn't get the nomination and I'm unhappy with both candidates.
Good essay. I agree that library neutrality is a means rather than an end, and that we need to better understand the ends that it serves. I also tend to agree with political and philosophical pluralism.
But I am not convinced that it is the end that we are looking for. Democracy and Liberalism seem more fundamental to me, and pluralism is a means to those ends or a consequence of them.
I know that this sounds pretty abstract. I should think it through at some point and try to explain the difference. Thank you for prompting me to do so.
Thanks John! I agree that liberalism and democracy are also essential considerations. I did situate my discussion of pluralism in terms of John Rawls' political liberalism so see them as very compatible. Pluralism is a value (a commons) that librarians can support and defend. However--much like broader social and political issues--the kind of political system we operate in is out of our control and direct influence; we can only do what we can to contribute to a political environment conducive to democracy.
And then you should write a piece for this Substack!
Great article (or manifesto), Michael! Thanks for helping us think more deeply about neutrality, pluralism, and the purpose for which libraries should dedicate themselves. There truly is more incoherence and uncertainty about purpose now than in the past.
I just saw this post this morning on Civic Pluralism in The Liberal Patriot which speaks to the larger issue of depoliticizing life (and finding common ground in communities, where possible)--and understanding difference. In other words, living with pluralism.
https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/a-path-to-civic-pluralism?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I’m a little surprised that the lockstepped purveyors of anti-neutrality and/or critical theory have let this exist for almost 24 hours without showing up to denounce the author as a counter-revolutionary or petit bourgeois parasite. They are usually pretty vigilant.
These are the conversations we must have. If the value of librarians and the ALA accreditation of LIS programs becomes an issue, the long effort to have a set of programs that demonstrate self-assessment and internal review may disappear. I teach in Florida. It is currently required that public libraries be administered by people with an accredited degree. If states pull out of ALA or change laws, there could be a lot of disruption. I've worked in LIS education a long time and believe that the accreditation process has merit. But when I read discourse in conservative outlets (that librarians are mostly ignoring) I have concern that failure to listen may have unintended result. I listened online to the Montana vote. The ALA Chapter counselor did a fine job, but the public comments were assertive against ALA.
Yes, the profession has become a smaller and smaller echo chamber with walls made of increasingly thick monument-grade granite, if you just sample the published ALA literature at semi-random since 1980. Ideological conservatives are as self-righteous and out of touch with reality as the critlib crowd in their own ways, but there is always the possibility of a conversation or series of conversations that might crack ice. Somebody has got to get some kind of open, public discussion to happen between some agreed-upon representatives. Jamie LaRue is pretty fair-minded, as is Dr. Emily Knox. If people like that could be empowered by the ALA as public envoys of librarianship of some kind willing to take input from those who actually fund libraries, they could do a lot of good. But the top leadership of the ALA is obviously being mislead by someone or they are too convinced of something to see that not everyone turning against what some libraries are doing can just be dismissed as knuckle-dragging, hateful fascists. I know because they’ve called me and they don’t just rant and rave. Their concern is not just “reactionary.”
Thank you Darryl. This is also something I address in my previous blog post, "The Certainty Trap" -- that people can have good faith objections to particular issues that have nothing to do with bigotry, but are nonetheless being condemned as such by some of our colleagues.
I am pretty sure they have decided to ignore this Substack after the first post because their counterarguments are weak (and/or don't look good to make in public) and/or they don't want to bring attention to dissenting voices.
That's interesting, thank you Susan. I imagine however that the Think Tank FB group would be a different story!
I wasn't familiar with them. But it is a closed group, so yes, maybe these pieces are being discussed there, as well as how to "deal" with us, heh.
Thanks for this work, Michael, it has really helped me clarify my own inklings in this regard. I'd like to think we need a Heterodox Libraries conference, although that's what our association conferences are supposed to do--promote discussion amongst multiple viewpoints.
Regarding Emily Drabinski the ALA president, I am uncomfortable with one individual being the target of the criticism of ALA, as she is really only a symptom of the larger activist librarian tendency, and was voted in by her peers exactly because of that. For the record, though, I specifically voted for the ALA candidates who appeared the least activist according their platform statements.
I recall it was getting more difficult to locate those candidates.
Thank you Todd, glad to hear that. I think a conference would be a great idea! But yes, I'm also uncomfortable with the focus of so much criticism against Emily--I agree (I think like most people in this space) that I'm much more concerned about the direction of the organization generally than I am about its president's political philosophy.
Per your essay, the private political convictions of the ALA president should be irrelevant to ALA members b/c the ALA shouldn't take partisan political positions regardless of who is the president. I was glad that Emily stated that her politics should be distinguished from the policies of the ALA in her interview (by deleting her tweet, it seems like she is acknowledging that it was unfortunate to put her politics front and center when celebrating her victory).
However, her reasoning seems to differ from mine. Whereas I think that the ALA should simply refrain from partisanship as much as possible, Emily says the ALA should reflect the "collective" views of the membership. I don't know exactly what that means, but it seems to leave the door open for ALA endorsement of partisan or ideological views that are broadly shared by ALA members.
The ALA’s next challenge will be managing the loss of non-profit status that will eventually come when somebody hostile to the organization gets in power in the right place and sics the IRS on them.
A mean-spirited investigation might look at the ALA’s public statements and press releases, invited conference speakers, etc. and find the exact “evidence of political bias” that can wreck non-profit status. Then a whole new constellation of problems precipitates. Public money can’t be used to pay dues to PACs nor can public employees go to their conferences using travel budget.
It looks like just such a process may have already started: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/rubioalaletterreligiousdiscrimination/
That sucks. If such an effort succeeds, it will be such a waste of something with amazing potential to bring this country together rather than join the choir of division.
Wow. This is very surprising.
Excellent points.
I agree with these comments about Emily Drabinski and the targeting of her--we discussed this briefly at our last Happy Hours meeting. I am very uncomfortable with targeting individuals even with those whose views I don't always agree with (though in Emily's case I believe she's advocated for better salaries and working conditions for library employees for quite a few years). I'm very sure I don't agree with her views in the #CritLib agenda, but that often gets tangled up with the other economic fairness agenda. Agree about the activism of a certain kind that's causing people to exit or look for alternatives. I think it's an interesting distinction to consider at least the HxA distinction between "advocacy" for the HxA core values, and activism around certain political views, political agendas, ideological movements, particularly manifested as part of one's official duties or on one's time. That's where "principled neutrality" in professional responsibilites matters, and as Michael has addressed here, within the larger civic culture of pluralism--which we're still exploring and I think has more potential to speak to a wider range of viewpoints.
There are broader civic dialogue associations out there that are working to build bridges and dialogue, generally. Somehow we need to mirror that bridge-building in librarianship by whatever means we can.
However, I am trying to think of other professions right now with some groups that are splitting off because of the prevailing orthodoxy that's the new hegemony--I know of one, Society for Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science, formed by those formerly in The Society and Social Psychology. Lee Jussim was one of the movers in forming the new association and they are already publishing a new journal.
The National School Boards Association lost membership over political issues.
https://www.axios.com/2021/12/07/national-school-boards-association-letter-funding