A U.S. example of a library denied participation in a Trans Pride event because it rented space to Kirk Cameron for his new children’s book “Pride Comes Before the Fall.”
"Seattle Public Library denied spot at upcoming Trans Pride Seattle."
The Seattle Public Library has been denied a spot at a Trans Pride Seattle event, according to the Gender Justice League, organizers of the event.
The Gender Justice League cited both a lack of space and the library’s past willingness to rent space to anti-trans speakers as reasons for denying the library a table at next Friday’s fair at Volunteer Park.
This link does not relate to your post, but perhaps you would comment on it in another post since it is about Canadian libraries.
Have You Been to the Library Lately? Librarians once worried about shushing patrons. Now they have to deal with mental health episodes, the homelessness crisis, and random violence
"Without the opportunity for open discussion or alternative viewpoints, the program was too one-way to be characterized as a true policy forum"-- this practice has become all too common in library conferences and workshops I'm afraid.
I'm glad to hear the presenter provided at least some examples of "moral panics" from across the political spectrum, but my guess is that she did not consider the idea that "trans ideology" could itself be a moral panic (in fact it is the first thing I think of when it comes to the idea of modern-day moral panics). It also seems she failed to mention that library staff has always been comprised of a large percentage of LGBTQ staff.
I too support keeping books like Genderqueer in the collection because any embrace of censorship is indeed a "slippery slope," as much as that term has become the object of derision. Very much agree that the defense of these materials needs to be grounded in viewpoint agnosticism. If not, libraries will become an unending, daily battleground of various groups demanding the removal of materials.
While in principle I agree with the kind of "viewpoint neutrality" argument put forward here by the author, I don't think it will turn back this trend. This trend has to be criticized on its own terms -- that is, from the left, not from the middle (let alone the right).
The kind of "all the people who don't agree with us are trash who deserve nothing, not even the public services for which their taxes pay" argument put forward by Santos Green and Popowich is *serving the interests* of late capitalist imperialism, not standing against them.
Isn't it interesting that just as the ability of Western democracies to continue providing the standard of living to which their populace has come to expect in return for loyalty, an elite-led discourse of "the populace is racist, transphobic, worthless garbage who have gotten much more than they deserve for years and they all deserve much less than they have right now" has emerged? Isn't it interesting that it is professional managerial classes who are REALLY enthusiastic purveyors of this message? Isn't it interesting that their version of "decolonization" actually serves the precise propaganda interests of late stage capitalist imperialism, from the utterly dehumanized marketing of human individuality and family formation to the withering and constant attacks on the possibility of interracial class solidarity?
it's super interesting! It is fascinating even! It should be brought up and thrown in the faces of these imperialist running dogs at EVERY OPPORTUNITY.
The insidious core of this anti-humanism in libraries is the proposition (never questioned) that words are violence and therefore everyone's psychological safety is of paramount concern for all institutions, including governments, in society. The host's question about our supposed responsibility to balance intellectual freedom with "the rights of employees to be free of oppression" could make a person think they are referring to the employee's legal protections or physical safety in the workplace... but only if you were a time traveler from 20 years ago. Of course the host means oppression by the words in books in the library, that no-one need read if they don't want to, and even if they did read them and were offended, are obviously not "oppressing" them or making them "unsafe." And since when do we let our core library values and principles be constrained by how our staff are feeling at any given moment in time?
It is interesting to see Popowich help organize a CFLA national forum where he appears to be pushing the conversation in a direction in line with his openly stated value system given that he signed this letter that criticizes position statements issued by the CFLA. Perhaps a (Canadian) classic example of the long march through the institutions? https://cfla-fcab.ca/en/intellectual-freedom/response-to-open-letter-on-intellectual-freedom-statement/
Ah, Sam, well that would make more sense. I formed my comment after reading this section from the article "Billed as a conversation exploring “different perspectives on the concept of Intellectual Freedom within the librarianship discipline” between library scholar (and Forum planner) Sam Popowich". How would you describe your role in the forum this year?
I had no role. There were two events: the CFLA forum, and the Manitoba Library Association conference. The CFLA used the technical infrastructure (Zoom) provided by MLA, but was solely organized by CFLA. I was tech support for the MLA conference in the two days following the CFLA event and I was the closing keynote for the MLA conference. I attended the CFLA keynote as a member of the audience.
A U.S. example of a library denied participation in a Trans Pride event because it rented space to Kirk Cameron for his new children’s book “Pride Comes Before the Fall.”
"Seattle Public Library denied spot at upcoming Trans Pride Seattle."
The Seattle Public Library has been denied a spot at a Trans Pride Seattle event, according to the Gender Justice League, organizers of the event.
The Gender Justice League cited both a lack of space and the library’s past willingness to rent space to anti-trans speakers as reasons for denying the library a table at next Friday’s fair at Volunteer Park.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-public-library-denied-spot-at-upcoming-trans-pride-seattle/
This link does not relate to your post, but perhaps you would comment on it in another post since it is about Canadian libraries.
Have You Been to the Library Lately? Librarians once worried about shushing patrons. Now they have to deal with mental health episodes, the homelessness crisis, and random violence
https://thewalrus.ca/future-of-libraries/
"Without the opportunity for open discussion or alternative viewpoints, the program was too one-way to be characterized as a true policy forum"-- this practice has become all too common in library conferences and workshops I'm afraid.
I'm glad to hear the presenter provided at least some examples of "moral panics" from across the political spectrum, but my guess is that she did not consider the idea that "trans ideology" could itself be a moral panic (in fact it is the first thing I think of when it comes to the idea of modern-day moral panics). It also seems she failed to mention that library staff has always been comprised of a large percentage of LGBTQ staff.
I too support keeping books like Genderqueer in the collection because any embrace of censorship is indeed a "slippery slope," as much as that term has become the object of derision. Very much agree that the defense of these materials needs to be grounded in viewpoint agnosticism. If not, libraries will become an unending, daily battleground of various groups demanding the removal of materials.
I also find it incredibly cynical that people are using "trans youth" to justify their desire for a censorship regime.
From last August: https://apoliticallibrarian.wordpress.com/2022/08/27/what-is-critical-librarianship-exactly/
While in principle I agree with the kind of "viewpoint neutrality" argument put forward here by the author, I don't think it will turn back this trend. This trend has to be criticized on its own terms -- that is, from the left, not from the middle (let alone the right).
The kind of "all the people who don't agree with us are trash who deserve nothing, not even the public services for which their taxes pay" argument put forward by Santos Green and Popowich is *serving the interests* of late capitalist imperialism, not standing against them.
Isn't it interesting that just as the ability of Western democracies to continue providing the standard of living to which their populace has come to expect in return for loyalty, an elite-led discourse of "the populace is racist, transphobic, worthless garbage who have gotten much more than they deserve for years and they all deserve much less than they have right now" has emerged? Isn't it interesting that it is professional managerial classes who are REALLY enthusiastic purveyors of this message? Isn't it interesting that their version of "decolonization" actually serves the precise propaganda interests of late stage capitalist imperialism, from the utterly dehumanized marketing of human individuality and family formation to the withering and constant attacks on the possibility of interracial class solidarity?
it's super interesting! It is fascinating even! It should be brought up and thrown in the faces of these imperialist running dogs at EVERY OPPORTUNITY.
It’s almost like Left Is Not Woke.
The role of "information mentor" reminds me of my concluding paragraph in this piece: https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/dimmed-by-the-deluge
The insidious core of this anti-humanism in libraries is the proposition (never questioned) that words are violence and therefore everyone's psychological safety is of paramount concern for all institutions, including governments, in society. The host's question about our supposed responsibility to balance intellectual freedom with "the rights of employees to be free of oppression" could make a person think they are referring to the employee's legal protections or physical safety in the workplace... but only if you were a time traveler from 20 years ago. Of course the host means oppression by the words in books in the library, that no-one need read if they don't want to, and even if they did read them and were offended, are obviously not "oppressing" them or making them "unsafe." And since when do we let our core library values and principles be constrained by how our staff are feeling at any given moment in time?
It is interesting to see Popowich help organize a CFLA national forum where he appears to be pushing the conversation in a direction in line with his openly stated value system given that he signed this letter that criticizes position statements issued by the CFLA. Perhaps a (Canadian) classic example of the long march through the institutions? https://cfla-fcab.ca/en/intellectual-freedom/response-to-open-letter-on-intellectual-freedom-statement/
That's probably because I had nothing to do with organizing the CFLA national forum.
I’d love to see a response to this comment.
Ah, Sam, well that would make more sense. I formed my comment after reading this section from the article "Billed as a conversation exploring “different perspectives on the concept of Intellectual Freedom within the librarianship discipline” between library scholar (and Forum planner) Sam Popowich". How would you describe your role in the forum this year?
I had no role. There were two events: the CFLA forum, and the Manitoba Library Association conference. The CFLA used the technical infrastructure (Zoom) provided by MLA, but was solely organized by CFLA. I was tech support for the MLA conference in the two days following the CFLA event and I was the closing keynote for the MLA conference. I attended the CFLA keynote as a member of the audience.
As a former chair of CFLA, it would have been very easy for Todd to have verified all of this.
Thank you for clarifying.