Entry tags:
Things Libraries Needed To Figure Out Yesterday: How to Exclude Some So Others May Thrive
I listened to a presentation recently entitled Library Neutrality as Public Service in Liberal Democratic Governance, presented by the Heterodox Academy. I mention the name, and their tagline, "great minds don't always think alike," so that you understand the presenters believe themselves as outside library orthodoxy and the majority opinion. They're not, not even close, but I understand why they want to position themselves that way, as outsiders, so that the rest of the library community won't dismiss them without listening first and seeing if they continue to advocate for a flawed or broken system.
( I was mostly disappointed )
And then, because the universe likes me and wants me to be happy, not that long after the viewing and the reading, my manager forwarded on to us a suggestion from a user to purchase a magazine called Salvo. It's not a magazine about guns and ammunition or famous bombardments, broadsides, and volleys of military history, but instead it's supposed to be a magazine in the style of Rolling Stone and Wired, but from a mainstream-appearing non-denominational Christian perspective. The reality is that while they claim no denominational affiliation, they are very much ideologically aligned with the worst of the theocrats, the gender-essentialist "helpmeet" types, and the white supremacists trying to make "critical race theory" into a shibboleth instead of the narrowly defined legal theory that it is. Because my organization defiant have policies in place that day we don't collect that kind of material and make it available, because it's harmful to our communities, I had to couch my objections in more "neutral" terms, like a concern for the factual accuracy of their material, since they give serious treatment to intelligent design theories, but from the perspective of already believing that intelligent design is true, rather than examining it with scientific curiosity and methodology, or the perception we might give off by having only this particular Christian perspective without anything to balance it, or how we would need to do a much better job of convincing library users that the presence of materials on our shelves did not constitute an endorsement of that material. I think I did a good job of making it clear that these were not people that we wanted on our shelves, and hopefully with enough reasons that wouldn't be decried as censorship or using my personal beliefs inappropriately. I should be able to say, "no, they're transphobic and homophobic, they're white-supremacist friendly, and they use 'scientism' as a heading on their website, trying to position the scientific method as a dogma and an orthodoxy instead of an outline for acceptable rigor in praxis. If we get their magazine, were saying to a whole lot of communities 'Don't trust us to do the right thing.' " That would be in accord with Principle 9 to say a thing is against our goals and the ethics of the organization. We'll see if there's pushback of the "must represents proper diversity of values" variety.
( I was mostly disappointed )
And then, because the universe likes me and wants me to be happy, not that long after the viewing and the reading, my manager forwarded on to us a suggestion from a user to purchase a magazine called Salvo. It's not a magazine about guns and ammunition or famous bombardments, broadsides, and volleys of military history, but instead it's supposed to be a magazine in the style of Rolling Stone and Wired, but from a mainstream-appearing non-denominational Christian perspective. The reality is that while they claim no denominational affiliation, they are very much ideologically aligned with the worst of the theocrats, the gender-essentialist "helpmeet" types, and the white supremacists trying to make "critical race theory" into a shibboleth instead of the narrowly defined legal theory that it is. Because my organization defiant have policies in place that day we don't collect that kind of material and make it available, because it's harmful to our communities, I had to couch my objections in more "neutral" terms, like a concern for the factual accuracy of their material, since they give serious treatment to intelligent design theories, but from the perspective of already believing that intelligent design is true, rather than examining it with scientific curiosity and methodology, or the perception we might give off by having only this particular Christian perspective without anything to balance it, or how we would need to do a much better job of convincing library users that the presence of materials on our shelves did not constitute an endorsement of that material. I think I did a good job of making it clear that these were not people that we wanted on our shelves, and hopefully with enough reasons that wouldn't be decried as censorship or using my personal beliefs inappropriately. I should be able to say, "no, they're transphobic and homophobic, they're white-supremacist friendly, and they use 'scientism' as a heading on their website, trying to position the scientific method as a dogma and an orthodoxy instead of an outline for acceptable rigor in praxis. If we get their magazine, were saying to a whole lot of communities 'Don't trust us to do the right thing.' " That would be in accord with Principle 9 to say a thing is against our goals and the ethics of the organization. We'll see if there's pushback of the "must represents proper diversity of values" variety.