Can you imagine some of these titles being discussed in libraries? Thinking about the false dichotomies hate groups fabricate to position their personal prejudices as relevant to the larger culture. In the examples above, the oppositions of “blacks” to “white women” and “Jews” to “children” are political ploys. If you don’t support the Ku Klux Klan, you must be against white women; if you’re anti-Nazi, you’re an enemy of the children. But, of course, you aren’t. You see through the false claims and rightly reframe the opposition as “hate group vs. target,” “society at large vs. hate group.”
Both of Meredith Farkas’s articles open with the news of transphobic speakers lecturing in public libraries, first Megan Murphy at the Toronto Public Library (TPL) and then the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) at the Seattle Public Library (SPL). TPL and SPL fall back on neutrality to excuse their decisions to host the anti-trans events. Farkas says that this is a betrayal of public libraries’ duty to take the side of the marginalized, to maintain a welcome and safe space for society’s most vulnerable.
0 Comments
Banned Books Week announced several days ago that George by Alex Gino—a middle-grade book about a trans-girl who, though she is known as a boy, wants to play the female lead in the play Charlotte’s Web—was the #1 banned or challenged book in 2019. There are many cogent criticisms of Banned Books Week as a library event and plenty of analyses of particular banned books, including George. But I want to focus on one issue in particular.
On the website Common Sense Media, George has its defenders, including the official reviewer for the site. Of course, it has its detractors too, most of whom worry about young children being exposed to sex. I agree that early exposure to sex can be detrimental to a child’s development and lead to all kinds of problems. In fact, I have personal experience in support of that fear. This is a comment I threw together for a discussion board in my Public Libraries class. Don't know how true I think it is, but it's worth sharing. If I'm way off, feel free to tell me. Topic for Module 1: Factors supporting public libraries Libraries generally suffer from a PR problem that places them in a more precarious position than when the movement was young and growing. Libraries are often pegged as nothing more than quiet study spaces, book repositories, antiquated resources for information much inferior to the Internet, and sources for free DVD “rental.” This isn’t the case in every community, but I believe it’s fairly common outside of the library profession and the relative handful of regular users. Many of the external factors that would otherwise support libraries fail to penetrate these misconceptions, and every library that has successfully changed its reputation has had to work very hard against these misconceptions.
The economic situation for libraries was far different in the 19th century than it is today. The country was still more rural than urban, taxation on all levels was very low compared to today, and the public library was relatively new and exciting. “Captains of industry” gave to libraries, whereas modern tech billionaires and others with money today give more to schools and politics. In rural Van Buren County, there are many towns and villages that are struggling economically, and there is no Andrew Carnegie looking out for them. Having an awesome public library is not, I think, a point of pride anymore for most communities. We tend to be seen as old-fashioned, and most communities don’t want to be seen that way. There are plenty of opportunities to change this, but it will take a lot of work and patience. On the other hand, scholarship, conservation, and local pride combine to lend support to one library service: local history/ genealogy, which has a small but loyal base of users. The focus of public resources in support of universal public education tends to be the schools these days, to the exclusion of public libraries, although that doesn't help school libraries. There is often a disconnect between the school library and public library, which presents another problem and/or an opportunity. I have seen quite a few parents who opt for homeschooling making extensive use of our public library. Self-education is alive and well in free computer classes for seniors and some other programming, but many of the cultural programs designed for younger and middle-aged crowds tend not to do well in my area. Vocational influence offers another opportunity for improvement. There is a lack of programming aimed at helping blue-collar working people. Even factory employment these days often requires basic computer skills. Increasingly, working people have to go online to apply for jobs, follow up on applications, check schedules, and retrieve paystubs. Although the younger ones among them have been exposed to computers in grade school, older working people are often at sea, technologically. There is a need for support of both employed and unemployed working-class people that often goes unfulfilled. Vocational focus could work in favor of public libraries with an increase of attention and marketing. The relationship between these factors and the success of libraries is also complicated by the change in basic assumptions over the decades. Libraries generally no longer emphasize Americanizing immigrants as much as providing collections that strengthen connection to their culture while helping them navigate the American bureaucratic structures. We also no longer prescribe “good” literature for moral uplift, but often instead focus on providing popular material and diverse literature for underrepresented groups. This impacts the effect of the self-education factor as well as the religious factor. (Here's where I get into some sweeping and frankly unfair generalities for the sake of time and space and the aesthetics of rhetoric. There may be more exceptions than adherents to the "rules" that I seem to indicate here. There is a vast and growing Christian Left that stands for diversity and inclusion. If the following offends, I apologize. I couldn't resist a few choice words at the end.) Middle-class White Anglo-Saxon Protestants were once inspired by their religion to use public libraries to tame the heathen and savage foreigner. Today, they are too frequently inspired by their religion and morality to oppose collections and programming that support disaffected young people, LGBTQ people, and other vulnerable populations. I know the bit about getting rid of the Library of Congress was a joke. However, we have to ask, from a conservative point of view, what functions does the public library perform? What is its value in Trump's nation?
Public libraries preserve the best of American culture, but the best according to whom? How many voices will be counted in making these decisions? Libraries provide equitable access to information, but that costs money. And why should the “winners” in Trump’s America pay for the “losers” to have access to the Internet or other sources of information? Public libraries connect everyone to information, but will information flow in the same way? I won’t call anyone a fascist … not right here, right now, in this context. Still clinging to some vestige of professional neutrality, I guess. But let’s say fascism were to creep in. Let’s say a figure at the center of a cult of personality gained some degree of unchecked power. Let’s say that that happened. What’s the history of libraries under fascism? Books burned, intellectual freedom suppressed. The majority would be privileged and everyone else is abused, on a scale that would render the problems we see today insignificant. What libraries remain would be tools of the State. If you didn't catch it, the short version is this: the Voice of Youth Advocates magazine published a review of a book called Run and recommended it for mature audiences due to “many references to Bo being bisexual and an abundance of bad language.” Certain parties were offended (rightly so, I believe) that (A) references to the fact of bisexuality were equated morally with "an abundance of bad language" and (B) references to the fact of bisexuality were themselves grounds for audience restriction. Just to be clear, a recommendation for a "mature" audience is not direct censorship, but it can have a chilling effect on the reception of a book by parents and educators. VOYA tried to claim that sexuality was the issue, not bisexuality. However, Phoebe North (according to Hannah Moskowitz) unearthed VOYA's history of recommending books with queer characters for mature audiences, but not restricting their recommendations for books that depicted heterosexual sex. This is a good account of the whole thing, if you want more detail: Oy, VOYA on SorryWatch.
This brings up three specific issues for me: the definition of bias, the definition of sexuality, and the interaction of identity politics and the workplace. I would define bias as the tendency to treat something as morally different from similar things. Morality, as I see it, often is apparent in terms of what “should” be done with a thing: Should it be allowed? Should kids have access to it? If I say a thing would upset the psychological development of a child, I am making a moral judgment about that thing. From what I understand, the folks at Voice of Youth Advocates repeatedly made a moral judgment about non-heterosexuality that they did not make about heterosexuality. On multiple occasions, VOYA recommended for mature audiences only YA books that showed homosexual relationships or made explicit that certain characters were gay or bisexual, even if no sexual act was depicted. At the same time, VOYA reviewed other books containing heterosexual sex scenes without restricting their recommendation. Clearly, if all of this is correct, it is not sexuality that VOYA believes is not for children, but certain kinds of sexuality. VOYA has a bias against homosexuality and bisexuality, based on their past and present publications. *** Some would agree with VOYA’s implicit moral statement. Many people from the LGBTQ community, understandably, do not agree. Many YA authors disagree. Many librarians, following professional values that celebrate diversity and inclusiveness, also disagree. I, personally, disagree. It is reasonable to expect a magazine with such a large audience of librarians to adhere to the values of librarians. When they clearly did not, many of us felt injured and insulted. As they persisted in refusing to admit the bias and make amends, the injury and the insult grew. The depth and sting of the cut I think is related to my second issue: homosexuality and bisexuality and other queer sexualities are not just about sex. They are about identity, emotions, romantic attraction, intimacy, and other things that are perfectly safe for children to read about, as well as about sex. Sex itself is not bad for children, but there are developmental considerations, and there are some depictions of sexual feelings and acts that are widely understood to be not good for kids up to a certain age. But sex is also a loaded term that carries connotations of explicit pornographic material. Many people who disagree with VOYA that bisexuality is harmful to children would agree with the statement that sex is harmful to children. The fact that the word bisexuality contains the word sex allows VOYA to excuse themselves by stating that sexuality is the problem, not bisexuality. It's bullshit, but it's a reasonable dodge, given the common (mis)understanding of sexuality. But the issue still stands: how do we talk about the non-sexual aspects of sex and sexuality? Do we need a new vocabulary to avoid pitfalls like these? *** Part of Tristina Wright’s response to this whole mess was this article, which brings up for me the issue of identity in the workplace. Identity politics is a tricky thing. Those of us whose identities cross into some realms that are not fully understood or accepted in society have a dilemma. Improvements in the situation can only come when more of us “come out” so that society can see different versions of “normal” and the young ones discovering their own identities can feel safe and validated. In the meantime, the more we "come out," the greater the danger we're in, especially if we work with kids. If I say, as Wright does, that I'm a bisexual with diagnosed mental illnesses, I have to take into account other people's (mis)understandings of sexuality, bisexuality, and mental illnesses. Should I be open about who I am and possibly suffer changes in my employment (which, depending on parental reaction and pressure, may be an issue)? Or should I proudly stand up and proclaim who I am, so that the next kid growing up with mood swings or multidirectional attractions doesn't have to feel quite so ashamed. This is nothing to take lightly. Wright cites some startling statistics: compared to gays and lesbians, bisexuals are more likely to experience mental illness and four times more likely to commit suicide. Something has to change. So, by the way ... |
AuthorJeffrey Babbitt, MLIS, is a graduate of the School of Library and Information Science at Wayne State University who is pursuing a career as a librarian in Michigan. Subject Headings
All
Inter- Library Loan004.02020025.431027.62090813.009Archives
June 2021
|