This reminds me of the current discussion about National Public Radio in the U.S. The lack of viewpoint diversity has shifted the audience to only those who share the same ideals as the NPR employees. If libraries and bookstores approve only one view their users/customers will seek alternative sources. This seems to have happened with news media as more people are dropping legacy sites in favor of Substack. I'm for expanding collections not narrowing them.
Rather than "doing the math", book selection should be based on quality of materials. Occasionally, there are small gaps in collections because nothing of quality has been written on that topic for some time, and that's okay. There's no need for silly tokenism.
Most book challenges seem to result from sexually explicit and/or age-inappropriate books. Libraries have always limited access to sexually explicit materials for common sense reasons, and I support that.
Parents should be treated with respect, but it should be made clear that collection development is the responsibilty of professional librarians. The librarians quoted here sound sadly unprofessional.
There is a real problem in library world of labeling challenges to sexually explicit and age inappropriate content as being challenges against “marginalized” groups. Librarians label the challenges as being against books with non white characters or against books with sexually or gender diverse characters. However, the majority of challenges are nothing to do with the characters identities. The librarians insist the listed challenge is a “cover” and it’s actually due to being a bigot. It’s insane. They don’t seem to acknowledge it’s not at all surprising that the number of books with diverse identities being challenged is rising in proportion to the increase of these types of books in the collections and in their promotional material. The human experience is something everyone shares. Whichever books are in the collection in the majority will receive challenges. Challenges have and will always be present. Now diverse identity books are the majority and so they receive the brunt of the challenges. They are the books that are right now telling the human experience stories. Classic conflation versus causation misunderstandings. I’m convinced they keep to their “scare stories” as it generates big dollars for easy efforts. Fear/panic sells and brings in funding.
I didn't attend the workshop, but the characterization of some of the comments belies a superiority - the idea that some ideas or worldviews are better than others and that some library workers "know best". I'm also curious about the notion that a book causes "harm" - how so? Are these same library workers decrying the harmful and toxic online world in which children and their parents spend much of their day? How does reading static text selected by a professional or looking at an artistic image compare to the all consuming (at times hateful) world of the unmediated internet? My sense is that some books express an idea or worldview that others do not care to countenance as opposed to concern about the actual book itself.
The concept creep with "harm" and "trauma" and similar ideas is never-ending. It's part of the CSJ (Critical Social Justice) playbook. This is a set of mix-and-match ideas that some people use for purposes of both power, intersectional affiliation, and grandstanding.
This article reminds me of the Niagara-on-the-Lake Public Library CEO Cathy Simpson being fired after events unfolding after she wrote: https://niagaranow.com/opinion.phtml/opinion-censorship-and-what-we-are-allowed-to-read/ . This HITS article follows the timeline of events https://open.substack.com/pub/hxlibraries/p/timeline-the-board-firing-of-niagara?r=1mq6c5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
This reminds me of the current discussion about National Public Radio in the U.S. The lack of viewpoint diversity has shifted the audience to only those who share the same ideals as the NPR employees. If libraries and bookstores approve only one view their users/customers will seek alternative sources. This seems to have happened with news media as more people are dropping legacy sites in favor of Substack. I'm for expanding collections not narrowing them.
Rather than "doing the math", book selection should be based on quality of materials. Occasionally, there are small gaps in collections because nothing of quality has been written on that topic for some time, and that's okay. There's no need for silly tokenism.
Most book challenges seem to result from sexually explicit and/or age-inappropriate books. Libraries have always limited access to sexually explicit materials for common sense reasons, and I support that.
Parents should be treated with respect, but it should be made clear that collection development is the responsibilty of professional librarians. The librarians quoted here sound sadly unprofessional.
There is a real problem in library world of labeling challenges to sexually explicit and age inappropriate content as being challenges against “marginalized” groups. Librarians label the challenges as being against books with non white characters or against books with sexually or gender diverse characters. However, the majority of challenges are nothing to do with the characters identities. The librarians insist the listed challenge is a “cover” and it’s actually due to being a bigot. It’s insane. They don’t seem to acknowledge it’s not at all surprising that the number of books with diverse identities being challenged is rising in proportion to the increase of these types of books in the collections and in their promotional material. The human experience is something everyone shares. Whichever books are in the collection in the majority will receive challenges. Challenges have and will always be present. Now diverse identity books are the majority and so they receive the brunt of the challenges. They are the books that are right now telling the human experience stories. Classic conflation versus causation misunderstandings. I’m convinced they keep to their “scare stories” as it generates big dollars for easy efforts. Fear/panic sells and brings in funding.
I didn't attend the workshop, but the characterization of some of the comments belies a superiority - the idea that some ideas or worldviews are better than others and that some library workers "know best". I'm also curious about the notion that a book causes "harm" - how so? Are these same library workers decrying the harmful and toxic online world in which children and their parents spend much of their day? How does reading static text selected by a professional or looking at an artistic image compare to the all consuming (at times hateful) world of the unmediated internet? My sense is that some books express an idea or worldview that others do not care to countenance as opposed to concern about the actual book itself.
The concept creep with "harm" and "trauma" and similar ideas is never-ending. It's part of the CSJ (Critical Social Justice) playbook. This is a set of mix-and-match ideas that some people use for purposes of both power, intersectional affiliation, and grandstanding.