ALA: Brainwashing Your Kids

originally posted at SHUSH

     The latest edition of American Libraries has a wrap around advertising promotional
materials for Banned Book Week (coming in Sept.). The theme seems to be the circus with banned books
placed in animal cages. There are a number of different items including posters for different age groups. This
is the one advertised
for children:

     On first blanche there is the obvious King and King issue. When I get into debates
about these materials I always hear (*always*) that "the parent bears the ultimate responsibility for their
children". So much for that. ALA is obviously promoting the book to kids whether parents are for it or not.

     On a second look the whole poster is amusing, especially with the recent
hullabaloo over the children's book on Cuba in the Florida schools. One of the big arguments supporting
the book has been whether its appropriate to get into the various political issues involving Castro and
his dictatorship in a child's book. And yet, here's ALA with a banned books poster directed at children and
even bracelets
for kids showing the covers of the banned books. None of these books are actually banned. Its just an excuse
for ALA to be wading knee-deep into what are very contentious and highly politicized issues and pushing
their own views onto kids.

     Nuts, every liberal one of them.

Comments

No, just one of the voters.

I'm just another peasant who votes and actually considered casting my vote in your direction. Now I have a doubt...or two (after reading some more of your journal)...or three (after visiting your website)...Thank God we still have free elections.

Re:No duhRe:It's not about you or me, Greg.

You keep equating race and sexuality, the two aren't even remotely similar.

Re:No, just one of the voters.

I doubt you ever considered voting for me.

moving on

OK, I'm pretty sure that we are not going to come to an accord on the nature of homosexuality. Let's leave that where it is, shall we?How about the original question: So wouldn't the best solution be to have all the viewpoints represented and have all the parents make up their minds themselves?

easy with the name calling

Inside voices, please. "Coward?" C'mon. Just guys talking here.
   

Re:moving on

Considering ALA is creating materials directed at children that pretty much undercuts any opportunity for the parent to make that decision.

Re:IS EVERYONE READING CHUCK HERE??????

I suggest you revisit my viewpoint of selection before distorting my position...again.

...As much as I love librarians I am neither foolish nor naive enough to accept that their collection development selections are free from personal bias. I know too many. And as collection development librarians understand the methods in which most patrons find books, biased (emphasis mine) collection development serves as the perfect tool (emphasis mine) to censor.

"Every book" are your words Fang. Not mine. And a pathetic commentary for a self-anointed logician to deliberately conflate my thoughts.

And here we have Chuck, a liberal librarian (I assume) sharing with us his prejudices in collection development. Telling us...one particular author be sliiiiiiiiightly beyond partisan politics and too far in to psychosis for consideration, as if the use of a DSM IV is commonplace with a CDP. A librarian that supports protecting others from deranged albeit bestselling authors. Unabashed censorship with justifications like "beyond partisan politics" as a means to filter and you can't get your arse off your mitts to peck out just one knee-jerk, jackboot, fascist, Rethuglian or slivering shit for Chuck.

And you never will.

Instead you shoot the messenger. Remarkable. And rather than throw yourself into a predictable fit of self-righteous indignation when shown this flavor of censorship, your vitriol leads you bury your noggin firmly in the Blake's sandbox after one last swipe at that coward tomeboy.

This coward still maintains you are a fraud.

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

If by "parents" you mean "people who supervise their children via cell phone" then yes those kids are doomed to get "gay" on them in the library.Greg, I know that you are somewhat of an evangelist for conservatism in librarianship and in all honesty I think it's good. I do think ALA is too ideological. I think many of the book reviews in our literature are too political and even, dare I say, liberally-biased. I think a diversity of viewpoints is good.But it seems that when challenged or quizzed on your points you either react with disdain or give one sentence answers to honest, substantive questions. I don't think that will help you win anyone overm win a seat on the Council, or integrate a more conservative voice into ALA.

Re:Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

I give simple answers when there are simple answers to be given. And you can say I talk with disdain but writing off the parent/child issue and ignoring just how often kids come into libraries without adult supervision is simply ignoring the reality of public libraries in order to support your own arguments. I've said it a dozen times and I'll sure I'll say it hundreds more, unless libraries start closing their doors from the time school lets out until the time parents get home then they are taking responsibility for those kids coming through the door.

Re:IS EVERYONE READING CHUCK HERE??????

And here we have Chuck, a liberal librarian (I assume) sharing with us his prejudices in collection development.

Don't we all have prejudices? If you want a collection development librarian with no opinions, prejuducies or biases I think you might find lots of people aren't comfortable working with a slice of dry toast.

Telling us...one particular author be sliiiiiiiiightly beyond partisan politics and too far in to psychosis for consideration, as if the use of a DSM IV is commonplace with a CDP.

I was using "psychotic" in a colloquial sense not a clinical one. Much the same way I am using "humorless" right now.

A librarian that supports protecting others from deranged albeit bestselling authors.

Actually what I said was I could understand why a librarian would regard some books as so hateful and libelous as to regard them as unpurchasible (sp?). I did not say I condone it. Further, I said on several occasions that I take great pains to buy books I don't argee with or like if I feel they will be of interest to my patrons. In fact I've said it now three times. I buy things for my patrons based on my professional judgment not on my personal beliefs.

Unabashed censorship with justifications like "beyond partisan politics" as a means to filter and you can't get your arse off your mitts to peck out just one knee-jerk, jackboot, fascist, Rethuglian or slivering shit for Chuck.

I'll admit that I have no idea what the above paragraph is supposed to mean, so here is a picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head:
http://students.law.drake.edu/lawReview/images/bun ny_pancake.jpg

Re:IS EVERYONE READING CHUCK HERE??????

It may be a bit unfair to bring you into this debate with Fang, Chuck. But I have always maintained, from personal experience, that the brand of censorship served up by ALA types is a distortion meant to portray conservatives as holding a monopoly on collection control. We've all heard about the Baptists, soccer moms and PTA types that want to remove a book here and there. Nothing new. But what about the institutional censorship of collection development librarians? How much more pervasive and insidious must this type of untraceable censorship be?

That said, you have with your comments re Savage given justification to pooh pooh an author based upon your personal distaste for his "hate". This judgement should never be part of a CDP or selection.

For the record would you agree that 1)preclusion based upon personal prejudice is tantatmount to censorhip and 2) it is institutionally practiced by some in our profession?

About the bunny

I give. A "Flapjackrabbit"?

Helen Lovejoy for ALA Council

Here's what I don't get: how is it that it's wrong for a collection development librarian to insert their own judgment into what people are "allowed" to read but a good thing to act in loco parentis for every child that walks in the door?I also can't help but notice that you condemn lefist librarians for inserting their politics into librarianship but support the injection of politics that you agree with (gays are icky.)

Re:About the bunny

Or "flapjackalope." The judges will accept either.

Re:Helen Lovejoy for ALA Council

Here's what I don't get: how is it that it's wrong for a collection development librarian to insert their own judgment into what people are "allowed" to read but a good thing to act in loco parentis for every child that walks in the door?

I also can't help but notice that you condemn lefist librarians for inserting their politics into librarianship but support the injection of politics that you agree with (gays are icky.)

You keep misrepresenting the arguments Chuck. I don't know as I've ever said its wrong for a librarian to insert their own judgement on what people are 'allowed' to read 'in a public library'. Considering I came up with a list of books that should be banned from the library I would be directly contradicting myself. However, that list is fairly short and again there's a distinction about how adults are going to be treated vs kids.

As for the second, I condemn leftist librarians for bringing non-library political issues into the profession and I condemn leftist librarians for letting their personal politics dictate their responses to library issues in ways that are shrill and completely unreasonable. There are many library issues that can and are argued from both sides of the political aisle and I have no problem with that in any way.

And for someone who accuses me of disdain I'm getting a kick out of your subject headings.

Eric B. for President

What can I say? My LCSH schtick just KILLS at the regional ILS meetings.If I have misrepresented your position, please allow me to clarify myself: I am confused because you seem to be saying that there needs to be standards used to "protect" children from certain books or issues. But I can't figure out how someone is supposed to figure out what these books or issues are.More succinctly: If you insist there should be standards, what should those standards be?

Re:Eric B. for President

Age for one. That may seem another simple answer but 99% of the people I debate with don't even want that (see CIPA and DOPA)

other standards

Oh sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm meant what should the standard be for excluding certain kinds of books or web sites?

Re:other standards

My criteria are here.

Let me also be clear. I do not advocate the pulling of books like King & King from public libraries, my arguments has always been that they belong in the parents collection which most Children Departments have.

Re:IS EVERYONE READING CHUCK HERE??????

. . . I am neither foolish nor naive enough to accept that their collection development selections are free from personal bias.

But you are so foolish and naive as to assume that no one has any capacity to set aside their personal biases long enough to judge a thing on its own merits. Your position is one of reductionism, and shows contempt for the greatness of humanity that many people aspire to. Stop projecting your shadow. Just because you are too spineless to challenge your own basic assumptions and become something better than a defeatist wallowing in self-pity doesn't mean everyone else is.

Here's a clue: everyone has prejudices; the rational person attempts to control his prejudices and takes them into account; the bigot allows his prejudices to control him. You wrote:

Filtering is a Collection Development Issue

For whatever reason, many of my colleagues refuse to accept the concept of a selection policy for Internet resources. I am told this is censorship. However many of these same folks use a selection policy for collection development. What is the difference?

There is no difference.

. . . after which you expend several screenfuls of bandwidth demonstrating that you have no concept of "restrictions that are reasonable as to time, place, and manner." But then, in the same load of bullshit you also conflated everything objectionable under the rubric "obscene" without differentiating between indecent, pornographic, or obscene, and without taking into account that "obscene" has a legal definition and materials cannot be found to be so until tried by jury.

If, as you propose, it is all censorship, then it necessarily follows that every book rejected has been banned. But I'll be happy to entertain any logically consistant arguments to the contrary if you can formulate one.

As for Chuck, he strives for understanding. He clearly demonstrates that he attempts to take his prejudices into account. You are just misinterpreting the thrust of his comments, and probably doing so deliberately.

Drop your shovel Fang

Yet another attempt to obfuscate.

I wrote:

  • For whatever reason, many of my colleagues refuse to accept the concept of a selection policy for Internet resources. I am told this is censorship. However many of these same folks use a selection policy for collection development. What is the difference?

    There is no difference. First let's look at the American Library Association's definition of "collection development".

    A term which encompasses a number of activities related to the development of the library collection, including the determination of the library collection, including the determination and coordination of selection policy, assessment of needs of users and potential users, collection evaluation, identification of collection needs, selection of materials, planning for resource sharing, collection maintenance, and weeding. (ALA Glossary of Library & Information Science, 1983)

    It's quite obvious when others read the context of my quote, "there is no difference" has absolutely nothing to do with censorship but with the subject of my piece, that;

    Internet resources are no different than print collections

    I say "when others read" because you knew this beforehand. You knew that what you selectively lifted from my Takes had nothing to do with my alleged belief that all selection is censorship. You knew that right Fang? You knew that equal consideration of internet resources in collection development, not all selection as censorship, was the subject of my piece. That "no difference" was in equating pixels on a CRT with ink on a page. And that anyone bothering to read your attempt to impeach may actually believe your window-dressed piffle. Of course you knew this hence your pitiable attempt to deceive by only using on 5 sentences from a 20 paragraph piece. All out of context.

    And all this to save your Fanged Face.

    Yes pitiable.

    Nonetheless if you're hellbent on digging, I'll be here to clear the dirt.

Re:Drop your shovel Fang

It's quite obvious when others read the context of my quote, "there is no difference" has absolutely nothing to do with censorship but with the subject of my piece, . . .

Do tell? Funny, you seem to have failed to get that point across. Shall I chalk that up as another example of your inability to communicate?

Re:Drop your shovel Fang

Shall I chalk that up as another example of your inability to communicate?

No, just another installment of your intellectual dishonesty.

Verstehen Sie mich jetzt, ja?

wheeeeeeee!

Flame war! W00t!!!!11!1!1!!!!! ROTFLMAOLOMFG!!!11!!!!!!!!111!! Fl4m3 w4rz r t3h l33t!!!!!!!

Syndicate content