![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradept[Another bonus entry. Because there are a lot of things I didn't learn.]
...and then there's this: a conservative group took objection to a presentation about a book called "Justice Makes A Difference". The way the article reads, even though I'm sure that journalism is just like librarianship in that it is entirely netural without bias or unexamined privileges, is that the group was strongly miffed that they lost their ability to use the library's meeting room for their political purpose and are lashing out against whatever they could find to oppose, under what excuse they could find.
I'm not sure that isn't giving someone too much credit. The event was billed as "Social Justice For Kids" in at least one promotion, and I'm sure much of the readership that follows along here knows what kind of feelings the phrase "social justice" evokes among a certain crowd of people. And as a library event, no less, rather than a community group. Clearly that must be partisan indoctrination, exacerbated, I'm sure, by the lost meeting room space. How dare the library put on an event that's an author reading their book and talking about it and what inspired it, to the audience that the book is intended for. That clearly can't be allowed.
The library does what it does best - it made the book available for people to read, and brought a copy to the next library board meeting in case anyone from the objecting group wanted to read it themselves. But nobody from the group came to ready the book or to talk about it at the library board meeting. Instead, they went to the city council, because the council controls the tax levy, and clearly that's where the pressure should be levied. (Everyone knows library trustees are just rubber stamps for the library staff and wouldn't actually perform the essential oversight role about how the library is being governed that they're charged with, often by the laws that establish them.)
The objectors are mostly trying to center things on the idea that concepts such as social justice are inappropriate for children and that an event such as this is clearly partisan. Here's the justification:
Hate to tell you this, friend, but there's a considerable body of resarch that says children as young as four are already noticing race-related cues and making race-based decisions by the same age [PDF]. So when a person says that it's not appropriate for children that young to discuss social justice, they're terribly ignorant of the research or they want children to grow up in a White-centered environment where White is the unremarked normal and everything else is in some way inferior to that. (They're probably also hoping to make cis, het, and a particular type of capitalism the undifferentiated default, too.) So when talking about "the entire community, and not just factions of it," they mean, very specifically, the White-as-unmarked-default community, the "majority" rather than the "factions" of Other. It's never too early to talk to a child about race, especially if you or the child is a white child, because there's still a lot of resistance to doing this among white folks.
As an institution, libraries have been really good at centering that unmarked default and pushing those cultural values on everyone else as part of the process of getting the Other to fit in with those values. There's been plenty of catering to a specific segment of the community, but y'know, to the privileged, equity feels like oppression.
Then there's the part about being denied meeting room space, because the library has been increasing the number of programs that it's putting on, and if you actually read most library's meeting room policies, they pretty explicitly say "the library's meeting room is primarily for the purpose of hosting the library's programs. Community groups may use the meeting room if there are no library programs for the space at the time they wish to book." Then, there's also the wrinkle of the library restricting community groups to non-partisan issues, which made the club that had been able to use the space ineligible.
We have bigger problems to deal with in the library than a conservative group complaining "but we're taxpayers!" Yes, you are, but the contract is that you provide us with the funding and we get to use it to provide materials and programs that reflect all of our community, for free, and open to the public. If you wanted to see what the fuss was about, you could have attended the program, rather than trying to get someone who's not involved to interfere. You could have read the book itself. You could have come to a library board meeting and aired your concerns there. You did none of those things.
Come back when you have an objection and are willing to go through the proper channels for it. We've been telling all sorts of marginalized people they have to follow the procedures as a way of getting them to go away, so now it's your turn. While we wait, perhaps the librarians can put on more programs to help children gather the vocabulary they'll need to talk about race, racism, and other -isms, too. So they can articulate the feelings they're having and the things they're learning from the society around them. It's part of learning how to be school-ready and to be good citizens in the worled. A fine use of taxpayer money, indeed.
Library school tends to assume that the perople coming in are looking for information for their own knowledge, for wanting to learn, or for purposes that we would generally think of as pretty civically inclined. That's...not always the case. Some people are definitely there for partisan purposes, or ageist ones, or racist ones, or whatever other purpose they may have in mind, and they want the library to help them conirm their beliefs and support them.
We get people what they want, not necessarily what they need, except where it comes in conflict with policy. And that particular distinction is subtle, but important, and not one that the library school had much interest in teaching us.
...and then there's this: a conservative group took objection to a presentation about a book called "Justice Makes A Difference". The way the article reads, even though I'm sure that journalism is just like librarianship in that it is entirely netural without bias or unexamined privileges, is that the group was strongly miffed that they lost their ability to use the library's meeting room for their political purpose and are lashing out against whatever they could find to oppose, under what excuse they could find.
I'm not sure that isn't giving someone too much credit. The event was billed as "Social Justice For Kids" in at least one promotion, and I'm sure much of the readership that follows along here knows what kind of feelings the phrase "social justice" evokes among a certain crowd of people. And as a library event, no less, rather than a community group. Clearly that must be partisan indoctrination, exacerbated, I'm sure, by the lost meeting room space. How dare the library put on an event that's an author reading their book and talking about it and what inspired it, to the audience that the book is intended for. That clearly can't be allowed.
The library does what it does best - it made the book available for people to read, and brought a copy to the next library board meeting in case anyone from the objecting group wanted to read it themselves. But nobody from the group came to ready the book or to talk about it at the library board meeting. Instead, they went to the city council, because the council controls the tax levy, and clearly that's where the pressure should be levied. (Everyone knows library trustees are just rubber stamps for the library staff and wouldn't actually perform the essential oversight role about how the library is being governed that they're charged with, often by the laws that establish them.)
The objectors are mostly trying to center things on the idea that concepts such as social justice are inappropriate for children and that an event such as this is clearly partisan. Here's the justification:
"Is this the age group of children to explore the ideas of 'social justice'? I don't think so. The library should cater to an entire community, not just some factions within,"Further justifications included that the book wasn't on particular websites as recommended for grade-schoolers, so it couldn't possibily be appropriate for the 5-up audience advertised.
[...]
"The library should present programs that represent and reflect the culture of the entire community, not just segments of it, and I want the council to take steps to ensure that that happens,"
Hate to tell you this, friend, but there's a considerable body of resarch that says children as young as four are already noticing race-related cues and making race-based decisions by the same age [PDF]. So when a person says that it's not appropriate for children that young to discuss social justice, they're terribly ignorant of the research or they want children to grow up in a White-centered environment where White is the unremarked normal and everything else is in some way inferior to that. (They're probably also hoping to make cis, het, and a particular type of capitalism the undifferentiated default, too.) So when talking about "the entire community, and not just factions of it," they mean, very specifically, the White-as-unmarked-default community, the "majority" rather than the "factions" of Other. It's never too early to talk to a child about race, especially if you or the child is a white child, because there's still a lot of resistance to doing this among white folks.
As an institution, libraries have been really good at centering that unmarked default and pushing those cultural values on everyone else as part of the process of getting the Other to fit in with those values. There's been plenty of catering to a specific segment of the community, but y'know, to the privileged, equity feels like oppression.
Then there's the part about being denied meeting room space, because the library has been increasing the number of programs that it's putting on, and if you actually read most library's meeting room policies, they pretty explicitly say "the library's meeting room is primarily for the purpose of hosting the library's programs. Community groups may use the meeting room if there are no library programs for the space at the time they wish to book." Then, there's also the wrinkle of the library restricting community groups to non-partisan issues, which made the club that had been able to use the space ineligible.
"It's an awkward and obvious inconvenience to impose on a group of taxpayers to appear at the library desk in hopes of securing a room," she said. "I would like the council to review the recent poor decisionsby the library staff, because my concern is that a tax-funded facility is politically biased and made possibly discriminatory decisions by prohibiting its use by taxpayers to secure space."Which is something that you take up with the Library Board, not the city council. And also, check the policies. If the library is standing on policies passed by the Board, you'd better have a really good case as to why you think the library following those policies is discriminatory and politically biased. If you want to cry "selective enforcement," provide your evidence, and it had better be more than just one anodyne program for kids.
We have bigger problems to deal with in the library than a conservative group complaining "but we're taxpayers!" Yes, you are, but the contract is that you provide us with the funding and we get to use it to provide materials and programs that reflect all of our community, for free, and open to the public. If you wanted to see what the fuss was about, you could have attended the program, rather than trying to get someone who's not involved to interfere. You could have read the book itself. You could have come to a library board meeting and aired your concerns there. You did none of those things.
Come back when you have an objection and are willing to go through the proper channels for it. We've been telling all sorts of marginalized people they have to follow the procedures as a way of getting them to go away, so now it's your turn. While we wait, perhaps the librarians can put on more programs to help children gather the vocabulary they'll need to talk about race, racism, and other -isms, too. So they can articulate the feelings they're having and the things they're learning from the society around them. It's part of learning how to be school-ready and to be good citizens in the worled. A fine use of taxpayer money, indeed.
Library school tends to assume that the perople coming in are looking for information for their own knowledge, for wanting to learn, or for purposes that we would generally think of as pretty civically inclined. That's...not always the case. Some people are definitely there for partisan purposes, or ageist ones, or racist ones, or whatever other purpose they may have in mind, and they want the library to help them conirm their beliefs and support them.
We get people what they want, not necessarily what they need, except where it comes in conflict with policy. And that particular distinction is subtle, but important, and not one that the library school had much interest in teaching us.
no subject
Date: 2018-05-29 10:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-05-29 12:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-05-29 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-05-29 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-05-29 04:50 pm (UTC)The sad thing is that it's not just waiting 20-30 years for 'a generation' to die out. My oldest niece is gay, my youngest is gay or bi, middle is het AFAIK. My parents and brother know about the oldest, not about the youngest. When the oldest announced her engagement and marriage plans to her girlfriend, my wife and I were ecstatic for her. My dad said he would not attend her wedding. My brother said he wanted to punch my niece in her face because (actual quote to me) "if she wants to be a man, she should be able to take a punch in the face." My mom wanted to attend the wedding, I told her that my wife and I would take her. Unfortunately niece and GF broke up before the wedding took place. Now you know why youngest niece has withheld her preference from the rest of my family. Utterly ridiculous. My sister has said that our parents have asked when the niece will 'stop being gay'. All of 'em self-proclaimed good stand-up Christians and voted for the current doofus at 1600 Pennsylvania.
no subject
Date: 2018-05-29 05:47 pm (UTC)I'm sorry that your nieces have to labor in secret to get what they want.
no subject
Date: 2018-05-29 05:24 pm (UTC)Also, it maddens me how little people care about learning about how other people think, just about getting what they want. Do better, humans.
no subject
Date: 2018-05-29 05:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-05-30 04:20 am (UTC)