The ALA Annual Conference 2017 was a big deal. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the closing speaker, just about a year after her loss to Donald Trump. In a speech surprisingly devoid of political rancor, Clinton praised librarians, saying, “The work you do is at the heart of an open, inclusive, diverse society.” The stark reality is that to do this work properly, librarians must take sides.
Traditionally, mythically, public libraries have held on to a “neutral” stance, providing a place equally for all voices in the community. The argument gaining in popularity now is that neutral stances encourage the status quo, perpetuating the marginal status of marginalized groups. Librarians’ focus, according to this stance, should emphasize equity, not equality, helping marginalized people overcome barriers specific to them in order to bring about equality of the outcomes of service. Do I have that right? Sendaula’s article reports on an ALAAC 2017 panel discussion on public library neutrality, kicked off by librarian Cory Eckert. Speaking from her experience working with the Navajo community in New Mexico at the Octavia Fellin Public Library, Eckert recommends reaching out to all parts of the community and in languages other than English where needed. Kendra Jones, District Manager for Youth & Family Services at Timberland Regional Library in Washington talks about kicking Santa Clause to the curb along with all other holiday programming. Karen Jensen, creator of the Teen Librarian Toolbox, discusses her controversial Black Lives Matter display in her “conservative, mostly white town.” Debbie Reese focuses on her work with American Indians in Children’s Literature and the importance of serving the often invisible native members of the community. Jessica Anne Bratt of the Grand Rapids Public Library, just a bit north of me, advocates pointing out racial differences during story time to model inclusion. Nicole Cooke, of the University of Illinois’s School of Information Sciences, describes the activities of the Ferguson Public Library in the wake of Mike Brown’s death. The panel’s twin themes are creating safety and normalizing radical action. Eckert says that social justice work is “what we've always been doing” and so not radical. While I’m sure public libraries were not working for social justice when they were segregated or when the professional practice of censorship was widespread (see, for example, these articles on public libraries in St. Louis and Chicago early in the 20th century), public libraries have for a long time now strived for equitable service to marginalized people. I’m guessing Eckert means to reference this period, roughly since the late 1960s. She recommends reading a blog by April Hathcock called At the Intersection. I read a few posts on this blog about the attitude privileged white folks need to adopt to be effective allies to marginalized groups in the fight against racism. It is eye-opening and a little anxiety-provoking and, yes, radical. I get that “not radical” is a necessary selling point for the majority of timid, mainstream Americans, who did not sign up for a fight when they applied to library school. But this kind of bold rearrangement of the power structure is radical, and radical change is necessary to correct an entrenched systemic racism that comes from hundreds of years of oppression. As Eckert herself said at another point in the discussion, “We don't live in an America where it's safe for people to speak out.” When the country is this far gone, any effective remedy must be radical. Neutrality dictates that library resources be available to everyone equally: no special treatment. It endorses the mainstream inclusion strategies of pretending race doesn’t exist and hoping silent representation of our very real multicultural society is enough to encourage tolerance. These strategies send the message, “Everyone is equal. All Lives Matter. No need to rock the boat.” Like the millions of Americans who claim to be “post-racist” and “colorblind,” these strategies are designed to reinforce the status quo, and the status quo defaults to the historical power structure. What could be more radical in a “post-racist” American than to say with Bratt, “It's okay to be different. Don't ignore it”? Celebrating difference is so far outside the norm in this country, it is bound to make some people (read: straight, Christian, middle- and upper-class white people) uncomfortable. Despite what Eckert says, advertising in languages other than English and to an audience formerly neglected by the library may be viewed by some taxpayers as subversive, radical. When Jensen says, “My job is to create a library where people feel safe,” she is not talking about the conservative white folks in her little town whom one can predict might be frightened at the prospect of the terrorist organization (according to Trump and his followers) Black Lives Matter invading their community. Reese points out that colonialism is not neutral, suggesting that librarians who do not go the extra mile to make sure Native American patrons have the resources they need and literature that reflects them reiterate the aggressive and destructive actions whites have advanced toward the indigenous at least since the 15th century. How is upending hundreds of years of white European cultural and political supremacy not radical? I get the marketing angle, but I think more realism is in order. Perhaps less effort should be spent trying to comfort people that this is just business as usual and more put into preparing librarians for a fight. Communication and legal strategies, resolving ethical quandaries, taking care of one’s own mental health and that of one’s patrons during an extraordinarily demanding and draining period in history: these deserve and need the time and energy currently diverted to the ultimately futile and counterproductive campaign to play down the radical nature of the changes we are undergoing. Obviously, we have to convince taxpayers to continue funding libraries, but there must be more honest and effective strategies than pandering to the majority’s need for comfort. After all, as Cooke says, “People might have to be uncomfortable; that's part of the process.”
0 Comments
Reflections on “Social tolerance and racist materials in public libraries” by Susan K. Burke8/25/2020 Susan Burke executed a series of interesting studies with 2006 data from the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey (GSS). She was interested in what percentage of the population supports removal of various kinds of “offensive materials” from the public library, how that has changed over the years, and what demographic factors are involved. Burke begins by describing the kinds of literature that might be removed, including “negative” literature (which I can only presume means materials that are somehow pessimistic about the human race?); materials of “questionable accuracy,” such as the infamous Bell Curve (Hernstein & Murray, 1994) study that suggested Blacks are naturally less intelligent than whites (I suppose, for the sake of including liberal as well as conservative works, she also might have included Michael Bellesiles’s Arming America [2000], much of the supporting documentation for which supposedly burned up in a fire); and materials containing ethnic slurs. She then introduces a pair of quotes: “If there exists a right to express an opinion, then there also exists a right to know about that opinion.” (John Robotham and Gerald Shields, Freedom of Access to Library Material, 1982) “If a public library is doing its job, it has something in it that offends every single person.” (Phylis A. Salak, “Objections to Gay Publications Prompt Policy Reexaminations,” American Libraries, 1993) The assumptions behind these quotes have gone through some alterations since the 1980s and ‘90s. Back in the day, although liberally educated, financially comfortable white folks like me wanted to help minority communities in their struggles for equality, we seldom asked those communities what they needed or wanted. Rather, like Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle—a single white British male in a continent of dark-skinned “savages”—we swung in to “save” them on our own terms. As a result, we often wildly missed the mark. I want to focus on racist material, but by way of comparison, I am going to pay attention to Burke’s results regarding two other kinds of “offensive materials” first: a book by a gay author and a book by a communist author. Burke finds that the percentage of GSS respondents who wanted to remove the book by the gay author in 1973 approached half (44.5%) and then shrunk by nearly half in 2006 (24.1%). Well over half (66%) wanted to remove the communist book in 1954. That number fell by one-third in 1972 (44%) and by another quarter by 2006 (30.3%). Burke concludes that tolerance for homosexuals and communists has increased over the past several decades. The answers to the question on racist materials reveal a trend in the opposite direction, however. The GSS asked this question: There are always some people whose ideas are considered bad or dangerous by other people … consider a person who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior? If some people in your community suggested that a book he wrote which said Blacks are inferior should be taken out of your public library, would you favor removing this book, or not? A clear majority (64.7%) did not want to remove the racist book in 2006, mirroring the majority in favor of keeping the gay and communist materials. However, the portion of respondents calling for removal of the racist book fluctuated from 38.1% in 1976, to 41.6% in 1982, to 31.8% in 1994, to 34.5% in 2006. The spread is nearly ten percentage points, but overall, support for removal moves down only 3.6 points during the period in question, which Burke says is not meaningfully different. Education level and religious affiliation significantly influenced respondent reaction to the gay and communist materials. These, along with race and age, play significant parts in opinions on the racist materials. Parenthood, place size, political affiliation, and political conservatism all have negligible effects on the reaction. Occupation has an effect in that those who work in libraries and education are significantly less likely to support removal. (Only 6.5% of librarians, who, according to previous studies, are less conservative on these matters than the public at large, called for removal. Teachers at the K-12 level called for removal at a rate of 26.6%, compared to 35.3% among respondents in non-library, non-education occupations.) Intellectual freedom is given plenty of attention in degree programs and professional circles in both library science and education, so this is not surprising. Region also plays a role, with respondents in the South supporting removal at 42.1%, those in New England at 25.2%, and other regions somewhere in between. Book removal is generally a conservative move, protecting the public from corrupting ideas. Politically, the South tends toward the conservative end of the spectrum and New England toward the liberal. Trends in other factors are more instructive. Increasing levels of education correlate with shrinking support for removal in the case of the gay and communist materials. With the racist materials, the trend is reversed. Those with less than a high school diploma became less likely to support removal of a racist book, while those with a college education became more likely to call for its removal. Graduate students were 9.5 percentage points more likely to call for removal in the later years of the study (averaging 19.3% between 1996 and 2006). If we continue to see book removal as a conservative issue (and posit that liberalism increases with education), this change might seem puzzling. Religious affiliation tracked in a similar direction, with Protestants (relatively conservative) becoming more likely to support the library keeping the book (removal support dropped three percentage points to 38.8% during the period in question) and those with no religious affiliation becoming more likely to call for removal (increasing 4.6 percentage points to 23.2%). The change in opinion is very small, possibly insignificant, and Protestants are still more likely to support removal than those with no religious affiliation, but let’s suppose for a moment that the movement is real. According to Joseph B. Tamney and Stephen D. Johnson in the article “Christianity and Public Book Banning” (Review of Religious Research, 1997, as cited by Burke): “… traditional [religious] ideologies lead to beliefs that humans are weak and cannot be trusted to make good decisions, thus censorship is an acceptable way to help people make the right decisions.” Less religious, more highly educated people may be adopting this as a secular philosophy. Such efforts would be in line with liberal politics on social issues, which tend toward government intervention for social justice. On the other hand, it could reflect a growing incidence of racism in white Protestants as opposed to white non-religious people. Race plays out in a fairly predictable way here. African Americans, understandably, support removal of the racist book at a significantly higher rate (about 50%) than whites (about 33%). Black Americans without high school diplomas opposed keeping the racist book even more frequently, at 63.3% in the early years of the study and 57.9% in the later years. Black Americans with graduate degrees increased in their support for removal of the racist book from 20.5% to 31.6%. As seen above, higher levels of education correlate with less support for removal, as intellectual freedom is traditionally valued more at higher levels of education. However, support for removal of racist books among the highly educated—especially highly educated African Americans—has grown significantly over time. Race and religion have some interesting interplay in Burke’s study. Generally, racial differences between white and Black respondents in different Protestant denominations reflect general racial patterns. However, Baptists are a different story. Baptists support removal of the racist book more strongly across the board, “predominately because of white respondents in this group being more likely to support removal than white respondents of other religions.” My speculation is that the Baptist churches, particularly the Southern Baptists, are more heavily influenced by African American traditions and the African American presence in general. Finally, age has a strong effect on support for removal of the racist book, with older respondents supporting removal at a higher rate (43.5% for 57 and over, between 31.1% and 34.1% for younger groups). Over time, however, the older generation’s support for removal dropped a full 10.1 percentage points. Support for removal also fell (to a lesser extent) among 43 to 56-year-olds, but rose among 30 to 42-year-olds while remaining constant at about one-third for 18 to 29-year-olds. Perhaps as the Baby Boomers aged into the 57-plus category, they carried the traditional liberal value of intellectual freedom. At the same time, Generation X carried a new liberal value of social intervention into the younger age group. Whether this is true may be borne out by future research. The point is, racist speech and anti-gay or anti-communist speech are seen as different animals by a significant and growing segment of society. Social tolerance is valued more in some circles than intellectual freedom. Where social tolerance and intellectual freedom co-exist peacefully, as in growing tolerance for gay rights and left-leaning politics, support for public libraries’ retention of relevant materials is on the rise. Where they conflict, as in right-leaning political works that espouse the greater value of white culture, locating the blame for poverty in the poor themselves, and other beliefs seen as hostile to minorities, intellectual freedom increasingly loses out to creating a more welcoming atmosphere for marginalized people. Burke includes in her review of the literature a discussion that forms my conclusion to this post. What happens when we intervene to promote social tolerance? The slippery-slope argument comes up, of course: “If we ban racist speech, how then do we not move inexorably to the suppression of other unpopular thought?” (Nicholas Wolfson, Hate Speech, Sex Speech, Free Speech, 1997) But also the idea that being berated and denigrated by racists might be good for marginalized people: “… a necessary component of any education is learning to think critically about offensive ideas—without that ability, one can do little to respond to them.” (Judge Stephen Reinhardt, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Monteiro v the Tempe Union High School District, 1998) “I cannot believe that all these so-called victims of hate speech possess fewer resources or intelligence or simple moxie than an eleven-year-old child so that their lives will fall into ruin because of the words some fool utters.” (Harry White, Anatomy of Censorship: Why the Censors Have It Wrong, 1997) This idea appeals to the boot-strap ideology of which white Americans (and others) are so fond. Don’t blame your troubles on the environment or the power structure. You should be able to rise above. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger! I think there is something to be said for this. Battle-tested mental and emotional strength can be useful, and there is always a minority whose inner resources are up to the challenge. We would never have had Nat Turner, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, etc., without that fact of life. However, for every Malcolm X, there are thousands, even millions of those who are too tired from the daily fight to make any progress at all. These quotes consider that exhausted majority: “… racist speech is used to intimidate, degrade, and silence people of color and thus is an important mechanism by which minorities are subordinated.” (James Weinstein, Hate Speech, Pornography, and the Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine, 1999) “… the impact of hate speech deeply affects the lives of the targeted groups, including affecting the individuals’ ability to live without fear and harassment and affecting the pursuit of activities or occupations that they might otherwise pursue.” (Burke paraphrasing Bhikhu Parekh, “Hate Speech: Is There a Case for Banning?” Public Policy Research, 2006) To allow materials that tell marginalized people that they deserve to be marginalized—that they are naturally less intelligent, less kind, less human—amounts to posting a sign on the door of the public library that says, “Minorities need not apply themselves. You are probably incapable of making good use of our materials anyway.”
This is not to say that the public library endorses the ideas in all of the materials it holds, nor does it need to do so in order for the chilling effect to manifest. But, to take a more obvious and extreme example, imagine a Neo-Nazi group using library space to spew their particular brand of racial hatred. Their opinion exists, and everyone has a right to know about it. In fact, I would argue that suppressing it completely does not kill it but drives it underground where it festers like an unseen, untreated wound. The infection spreads. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” On the other hand, how many targets of the Nazi hate are likely to feel welcome (although, legally, they are able) to sit in on the event or even enter the library when, day after day, they encounter the more subtle but just as persistent messages that they are not as worthy, not as strong, not as smart as the white majority? We can reasonably assume the library’s materials have the same effect, though on a lesser level. Materials are also more easily subject to side-by-side competition from an ever-growing body of counterargument in favor of diversity, inclusion, and celebration of marginalized cultures. What about the effect of this competition? And what about so-called “reverse racism,” the case of anti-white materials or groups and their effect on the majority? Can a fair comparison even be drawn? There is much more about this topic that needs to be explored. But I’m going to let it rest for now and move on to formulating an analysis of the document in my research plan that comes next, chronologically: Sendaula’s Library Journal article from 2017, “Libraries are not neutral spaces: Social justice advocacy in librarianship.” See you in a week or two. I saw a meme shared by a conservative friend that said, “You must always be willing to truly consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs and admit the possibility that you may be wrong. Intelligence isn’t knowing everything. It’s the ability to challenge everything you know.”
Good, solid, liberal advice from my youth: Question everything. The problem with this sentiment in the age of COVID-19 unfolds like this: It seems (to me) to assume that all information is equal, that the opinions of the average high-school dropout are equal to those of the expert with a relevant doctorate. They’re not. Much has changed since I was a kid. When I was a child, cultural relativism and suspicion cast upon expert opinion was the purview of the countercultural Left—the neo-hippies, the punks, etc. Now, the Right has embraced postmodernism as a great equalizer for science and religion. Science is suspect. Double-blind, randomized placebo trials go head-to-head against wild conspiracy theories … and lose. How to argue for critical thought when I in my youth defined “critical thought” as analysis of majority opinion and adoption of its opposite? In some ways, I’ve finally outgrown my rebellious adolescence just in time to see the enemy regress into childish tantrums. In some ways, nothing has changed. In some ways, everything is turned on its head. The plan for the next few posts is to delve into this issue: Do public library collections need to include all perspectives? Including those without rational or legitimate scientific basis? Including those that conflict with the goal of providing a safe, welcoming space for marginalized people? Questions of neutrality and diversity will weigh heavily on this issue. Perhaps the most important question will be, Does the world need yet another opinion from a white male of middle-class extraction? The answer to this is profoundly and resoundingly “No.” But I am posting anyway, for these reasons:
So far, and possibly finally, I will include the following articles, blog posts, and papers in my exploration. I welcome other resources, especially those from the conservative side and/or in favor of neutrality, as I wish to understand that part of the debate more fully. It’s not easy to find the conservative voices among librarians. If you want to get a hold of me, just comment below or send me a message on the Contact page. Burke, S. K. (2010, Summer). Social tolerance and racist materials in public libraries. Reference & User Services Quarterly 49(4), 369-379. Farkas, M. (2019, November 4). When libraries and librarians pretend to be neutral, they often cause harm [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2019/11/04/when-libraries-and-librarians-pretend-to-be-neutral-they-often-cause-harm/ Farkas, M. (2020, May 1). When speech isn’t free: Ensuring free speech requires more than neutrality. Retrieved from https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2020/05/01/neutrality-when-speech-isnt-free/ Lauren (2020, June 8). We need to talk about diversity and neutrality in libraries [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://hacklibraryschool.com/2020/06/08/we-need-to-talk-about-diversity-and-neutrality-in-libraries/ Mary Elizabeth (2020, February 25). Libraries should take sides: Breaking down the neutrality myth [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://hacklibraryschool.com/2020/02/25/libraries-should-take-sides/ Neal, J. (2018, June 1). Are libraries neutral? Highlights from the Midwinter President’s Program. Retrieved from https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2018/06/01/are-libraries-neutral/ Rinne, N. A. (2018, May 25). Against the Library Bill of Rights — unpublished essay from 2013. Retrieved from https://reliablesourcessite.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/against-the-library-bill-of-rights-unpublished-essay-from-2013/ Rinne, N. A. (2018, June 4). Should offensive books be removed from your library’s collection? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://reliablesourcessite.wordpress.com/2018/06/04/should-offensive-books-be-removed-from-your-librarys-collection/ Sendaula, S. (2017, July 7). Libraries are not neutral spaces: Social justice advocacy in librarianship. Retrieved from https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=libraries-are-not-neutral-spaces-ala-annual-2017 Sonnie, A. (2018, April 5). Advancing racial equity in public libraries: Case studies from the field. (Issue Brief No. 8). Government Alliance on Race and Equity. Retrieved from https://www.racialequityalliance.org/advancing-racial-equity-in-public-libraries-case-studies-from-the-field/ When I originally put in my notice at my last job, the official reason was that my girlfriend and I were moving to Grand Rapids. Circumstances changed, and that is not happening. However, I have not regretted leaving my former employer, though I have no reason to speak ill of them. It's a wonderful library system and I still happily use the local branch as my primary public library. The real reason I wanted to leave was that I felt the nature of my job had changed and I was unhappy at work there. Unhappy employees are not an asset to any employer. They tend not to do their best work. So, I moved on. I will approach my next job with fresh but realistic expectations. Within those realistic expectations, however, I will remain cognizant of what is a good fit for me and what is not. I'm not good at functioning while miserable, so I must do my best to find contexts that will offer me support, challenge, and some reasonable degree of freedom along with responsibility. When I earn my MLIS in April, the possibilities will open up for me.
It sounds like I'm expecting a baby, but no. I recently finished a marketing course for library school, in which I earned an A, and have nine months--two semesters--before I graduate with my Masters in Library and Information Science! This is good news. There are still a few things which could derail the whole plan, though, so I need to be cautious while still giving myself credit where it's due. This is the third time I've gone for an advanced degree, and the closest I've come to earning one. This is also the first post on this neglected blog since I quit my job at the local library. It's been a while. Everything is more or less fine, thanks. How are you?
What does one do when one is told fairly explicitly to stop trying to expand teen services and stick to one's job description? One falls into a depression and drags one's feet, I suppose. I still do the best I can at work. I just do it with a little less joy.
I want to get back into this blog. In the meantime, I've just uploaded a recent paper from my Children's Lit class to my home page. Enjoy.
Came across this article (New display policy approved by Temple Library board) and was afraid for a minute that the bad guys had scored a victory. As it turns out, that is not the case. But it did get me to thinking what is acceptable in the name of "balance" when that means limiting inclusion.
Are we obligated as a neutral point in the community to provide a counterpoint to the message "You deserve to live and be happy"? Are we obligated to inform LGBTQ youth and adults that, according to one viewpoint, they will eternally burn in hellfire if they follow their natural inclinations to love and be loved? Are we obligated when making a display on the Holocaust to include the Nazi point of view that Jews are subhuman and deserve to die? Of course not! Why would we allow a message that makes some members of the community feel less deserving of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness than any other part? I am assuming here that we are talking about segments of the population whose behavior does not trample the rights of others. We're not talking about pedophiles here. We're talking about people making the free choice to act in ways that fulfill them and respect others at the same time. Irrational, culture-based opinions assigning moral judgment to homosexuality or transgender status or Jewishness or whatever are allowed to exist. You can't stop them from existing. And anyone who believes, for example, that homosexual acts are sinful is perfectly free not to act on homosexual desire. That is that person's right. But without a scientific, secular basis for declaring an act inherently harmful, pushing such a belief on another individual is anathema to a free society. Libraries are invested in inclusion of all segments of society. Telling one segment that they are inherently evil is not a welcoming act. It is an exclusionary act and cannot be part of the library's public message. The message we send to the conservative Christian community is not "You are inherently evil and are not welcome here." It is the same message we send to Nazis. You are welcome to come and peacefully coexist with your fellow community members. 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. This next year is going to be full of opportunities. Before I get into it, I wanted to sketch out some ideas and keep them here for a quick reference.
|
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
|