WILL UNWOUND #428: “3 Ways to get Blackballed in the Library Profession”
April 26, 2011Yesterday, we had a fascinating discussion about how to create an on-line profile through Facebook, Twitter, and blogs that will be helpful in procuring a library job. The discussion got me thinking about how to create an internet presence that will effectively limit your library career prospects. It’s very simple. Just write about your personal belief in conservative politics, organized religion, and a common sense view of computer filtering.
1) Conservative politics….We all know that the library profession is extremely liberal in its political leanings. To prove this all you have to do is look at the big name speakers at A.L.A. conferences. How many conservatives have there been among this group in the past 40 years? Maybe one or two at most. Librarians would rather be validated than challenged when it comes to politics. But it goes beyond that. Many librarians think that conservatives are selfish, stupid, unsophisticated, and ultimately evil people. Conservatism is not an alternative political viewpoint to the library profession; it is a curse. The unfortunate issue here is that our many city councils, county boards, and state legislatures are ruled by conservative politicians. These are the folks who hold our purse strings. Isn’t it time to stop demonizing them and start dialoging with them? Don’t even think about it if you want that big promotion.
2) Organized religion….The library profession is very wary of organized religion, because religious morality is the banner that many book censors wave. Many librarians disdain organized religion because they think it is repressive, judgmental, irrational, evangelical, and overly structured. If you are a librarian it is okay to freely talk about your spiritual quest as long as you do not mention that you belong to an organized church. It’s also very okay to be openly atheistic and agnostic because this shows you are a thinking person who has overcome an early childhood attachment to superstition. If you have to be an avowed member of a formal religion, Buddhism seems to be your best bet. Buddhism seems to be the cool religion right now. Protestantism and Catholicism definitely are not. If you are a member of a formal Christian Church keep that part of your life in the closet for the good of your career.
3) Censorship – Perhaps the most career limiting move that you could make in the library profession is to refuse to toe the line with the anything goes philosophy of the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom. I am still getting criticism heaped on me for a series of articles that I wrote in the 1990s advocating that filters be put on children’s room computers to block out pornography. Really! I’m pretty sure that the library profession is the only profession in the world that wants children to have access to pornography. Why? Because everyone is afraid of being called a censor. It is the death nail in the career coffin. The irony of all of this is that the library profession touts itself as the champion of intellectual freedom. If that’s true why can’t we freely express our dissenting views of an “anything goes” philosophy of intellectual freedom…or conservative politics…or organized religion for that matter?
Great job, Will. Let me remind people of something you wrote previously, and dig the URL: http://tinyurl.com/WillManley
“I’m pretty sure that the library profession is the only profession in the world that wants children to have access to pornography. Why? Because everyone is afraid of being called a censor.”
And why are they afraid to be called a censor? That would be courtesy of former de facto ALA leader Judith Krug and her bringing her ACLU leadership policies and enforcement tactics to the ALA.
Dan, Krug was a force. We will not see her likes ever again in this profession. She was one of a kind. RIP
Yes, RIP Judith Krug. The new leader of the OIF is a poor substitute. The deputy director is a plagiarizer and an unethical astroturfer. Maybe now is the time for librarians to do what they know is right and take back control of the OIF from the Krug/ACLU acolytes.
Will, you up for leading that effort?
Dan, that is one of the articles that got me into trouble. I still have librarians coming up to me very upset because their trustees saw that article and then voted for filtering. So much for intellectual freedom.
One of them? Tell me more, tell me more!
I have a question (and I will probably be pulling what’s left of my hair out for asking): Can somebody explain to me why folks don’t like the ACLU? I really don’t have much knowledge of them or why people don’t like them. Is it a recently dislike or have they been disliked since the 1920s?
Yep…I’m going to regret this.
Beats me. ACLU was honored in my house when I was growing up. I can tell you that stoped the day ACLU supported the Nazis in Skokie. (quick summary for those born after the event: NeoNazis applied and got a permit to march in Skokie which was largely populated by Holocaust survivors. It was of course maliciously planned for maximum PR by the Nazis and succeeded. ACLU supported the Nazis, against the Jews who sued to stop the Nazis from stirring up trauma in Skokie.) My mother never forgave ACLU for that. They were right constitutionally speaking but totally wrong emotionally speaking. I think they are still fighting the effects of that stand. And before people wonder, I have to extremely reluctantly say ACLU was right. I don’t financially support ACLU because I prefer to donate my money to another sort of cause but I do think they are an admirable organization that has been consistently on the right side of the constitution even when people hate to admit it. I’m sure that ACLU has done similar things in more recent years than Skokie which has also irritated people. Perhaps someone more up to date on ACLU can enlarge on the recent history? No, I see no reason why you should regret your question AE! If you don’t have an answer, how else are you to find out unless you ask?
Joan-
I’m trying to avoid conversations here that will wreck my nerves. It’s the only way I can continue to possibly post.
A.E. Harrison, regarding the ACLU, here is a recent case that may provide an example of why folks don’t like the ACLU, but I do not myself know of the issues involved and only happened to have come across this link:
http://t.co/xtG6Qj3
Hi, A.E., I meant to just check in briefly and read, but logged in to WordPress just to respond to your question.
I respect and admire the ACLU; I like the ACLU a lot. I was a member for a couple of years in college and realized during the
régime of the usurperearly years of the Bush administration that the ACLU was desperately needed and that I felt a deep responsibility to give at least basic support to that work. So I have been, literally, a card-carrying member since 2003.My read on it, and this is a strictly amateur impression, is that some people have disliked the organization from the beginning, but that the anti-ACLU drumbeat has intensified during the ascendancy and increasing radicalization of the conservative movement over the last 30 years. Their defense of the Nazis’ right to march in Skokie, as Joan R has described above, also hurt them in public relations, but that is consistent with the organization’s policy of doing what they consider the right, not the popular, thing.
Maybe part of my admiration of the ACLU comes from wishing I had more of the courage and integrity that the organization embodies.
But more important is that they have been consistent and effective defenders of the highest principles of the Constitution–sometimes, very nearly its only visible defenders.
Dan-
Unfortunately, the language and point of view in the post you provided would label me, most of my friends, and a number of people I know and admire as serious “scourges” on the face of society. But this does give me somewhat of an insight of why people do not like ACLU. Thank you.
RA, as usual, explained the actions of the ACLU much better than I did. Let me clarify that while I am uncomfortable with their nazi decision, I do know they did the right, unpopular, action in terms of the constitution. They take uncompromising action once they have determined that an action is needed and I’ve never have heard of them backing down. I believe they only work on legal issues and are highly effective at what they do. That is probably the real reason they are hated. They look at the legal issues, and win because they have analyzed the issue before hand and know that they are on solid legal ground before getting involved. I admire them highly.
A.E.-
Don’t worry. I think the ALA would label me a scourge. I count that as evidence of my effectiveness.
Oh, by the way, the Annoyed Librarian wrote approvingly about my views today.
I don’t know a lot about them either but I suspect it might be because they carry things a little too far. For some reason in the back of my mind I have the idea that they are always wanting to start trouble where there is none. Remember, I said I really don’t know.
Dan–
I don’t think you would want me anywhere near a library or children. I would probably represent what you detest.
And I don’t like the Annoyed Librarian for the same reason that it has become increasingly hard for me to post here.
A.E.-
You said, “I would probably represent what you detest.” That is irrelevant. If you and I met we would probably get along famously and trade interesting war stories.
Besides, what I “detest,” if anything, is irrelevant to what I do as SafeLibraries. I just advise communities of another point of view, then step out of the way to let them make any decision for themselves. That is not the ALA’s style, and I know as the ALA forcing its way on a community was the basis of the case underlying the creation of SafeLibraries where children still have access to Playboy as a result of the library ignoring the community’s repeated efforts to stop that and the ALA’s helping the library to do that.
You know, the ALA blocked me (possibly illegally) from taking “Lawyers for Libraries.” There was no equal access for me from the equal access people, and the patron privacy people investigated my background. I feel robbed as I will not have the chance to see Judith Krug in action anymore. I would have met her with smiles and good cheer.
So, A.E., you can say anything you like and I’ll still like you!
A.E., IMHO, many people don’t like the ACLU because they don’t know (or care) what IS in the Bill of Rights and that all the ACLU is doing (or supposed to be doing) is defending the Bill of Rights. People might disagree on which cases they should take since their money is not unlimited, but they should not be vilified in the manner they are in this country at this time. I think that their vilification that is popular in too much of this country was a sign of how civil liberties in the U.S. were eroding.
The vilification of the ACLU is also a sign of the increasing lack of manners in this country. I say manners because in a way you might say that the Bill of Rights provides a mannerly way of getting along with others. We have separation of church and state so we don’t end up with a theocracy and the literally warring religious factions that have happened over the centuries.
Others may have covered this issue somewhere in the replies in this blog, but as I have not read every single post in this thread I am answering your question with my two cents. Glad you raised the thread.
I try not to let the ACLU be vilified in my presence without extracting specifics from the person and pointing out to them that everyone should be for protecting the Bill of Rights. I note that most who make their political credits on this issue want to take away all civil liberties, all civil rights and turn this country into a total despotic theocracy.
Anything that takes a person past being vanilla will affect their career – for good and ill.
And you’ve mentioned a couple of reasons I dislike ALA – the insistence on politically correct group think and the avoidance of opposing viewpoints.
Leslie, I think you are right. I think hiring authorities are looking for “safe” right now and they are getting it because it is a buyers’ market.
I’m laughing a lot here Will. I’ve either done or been accused of all 3 of these, regardless of whether guilty or not.
1. I believed Colin Powell at the UN – oh my – lol – makes you wonder how many others did also – at the time. 1a – I know we didn’t blow up the Iraqi libraries (but might as well have been personally guilty when I pointed out the Iraqi’s took care of that themselves). ALA Council became so hostile over it all it was worthless for years.
2. Actually B’Hai probably fits librarians best after Buddhist. You want to see an underdeveloped section of most libraries – go check out the religion section. You can find more on tin-foil hat conspiracy theories and monuments built by space aliens. I find individuals who have no faith in anything personally suspect – that many people can’t have been raised by wolves.
3. I’ve always said we screwed up by the numbers when we (ALA) didn’t build a filter and push it out there. Ours would have had a nifty on/off button. Problem solved. Funds would have been raised for the Professional Association. Instead the profession painted a big bulls eye on it’s butt. I still advocate filters for kids. You will notice, most libraries actually have them now, whether they want to admit it or not.
Nobody ever said you had to check your faith, your politics, or your brain at the podium when you accepted your MLIS.
Right on, John. Right on!
It’s Baha’i.
I make spelling mistakes on purpose – just to give i dotters and t crossers something to do…
Amazingly, quiet on the blog front. I’m usually poster number 134+. You must have hit on a sore spot, Will.
me too, actually I posted early and took a nap. I am taking all this sick leave advice seriously. Tought to be retired.
I agree with everything you say.
I’m not a conservative and I’ll admit I don’t have a great deal of patience with conservative people that embrace today’s anti-intellectualism and use emotion as the sole basis for their belief in whatever – that there isn’t global warming, that the President wasn’t born in the United States etc.
Having said that I’ll also have to grant that not everyone that is a conservative does embrace anti-intellectualism but boy, there do some to be many, many people today that do.
I also have to note that I object to the fact that there seems to be a stigma for many people attached to the word intellectual. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines the word intellectual as “appealing to or requiring the use of intellect” and the same dictionary defines the word intellect as “the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. with regard to abstract or academic matters.” And that has always seemed to me to be a thing to be strived for – to be intellectual; but of course we’re living an anti-intellectual age…
what? …
I’m not sure what your question is…
Linda, remember George Wallace’s favorite expression…”pointy headed intellectuals.” We actually need to engage these people because they are getting more political power.
And I agree with that too — it doesn’t seem like there are many intellectuals on the political/governmental scene at the moment but then perhaps they are smart enough to not sensationalize what they are doing and are just quietly or semi-quietly working away behind the seen in the news scene.
#1. Right wing, left wing, don’t you need both to fly a plane?
#2. Never ask. But if you automatically assume that someone is going to behave or think a certain way because they happen to go somewhere with other folks and do what ever they do for worship…you have just stereotyped (in case you didn’t know).
#3. I have no opinion. Unless someone complains, someone is asking some one to “perform something”, or it is violent, I don’t worry about it. But I don’t work in a public library.
The first two should never have anything to do with a person’s ability to perform a job. If it interferes with providing user services, then it can be addressed. Otherwise, no one should care. In my reference department, I would be the odd one for #2 and another person would be #1. Would anyone care? Probably not because we do our jobs to the best of our ability. The last one should only pertain to whatever your library’s policy and demographic is, but I work in an academic library, so censorship is fairly non-existent.
All three harken back to the reason why I probably distance myself from “the profession”. The inability to see anyone else as intellectual but them and to see intellectual as only one way.
As for ALA, that organization seems to have forgotten it’s own hazy history when it comes to certain topics, and I could care less what soapbox they are stomping.
Love #1! Gotta remember that.
Doesn’t what really matter is if a person does their job? And if they do their job, I don’t give a damn about their religion or politics.
AE…this is a profession with a very tight set of norms. I like what you have written here. Hope others digest it and reflect.
I think it’s a profession that thinks it is liberal and skipping through the tulips but it has its on set of “conservative” values, especially when it comes to what a damn librarian should think and be.
I’m not hear for ALA or “the profession”, I’m here for my users. So they can kiss my grits.
Your comments are always worth reading and reflecting on, A.E. I don’t always agree with them and sometimes they raise my hackles a bit. But I *never* think they can be dismissed. And usually the hackles are telling me there’s something I need to think about.
Will, you’ve mentioned before that librarianship has a “very tight set of norms.” And I think I’ve responded before, but when have I hesitated to repeat myself, As opposed to what profession that doesn’t have norms?
Plumbers, politicians, public administrators, lawyers, medical people, etc., etc. Most professions have room for a wide diversity of political views (this is one example). The library profession does not.
Two thumbs way, way up for your calling these points out, Will. As someone who has some conservative stances (for anyone out there laughing their patootie off–no, seriously, I do!), goes to church every Sunday, and thinks computers in the library’s Children’s Department should be filtered like muddy water, I’ve noticed these three potential strikes against a candidate. It was one of the cool things about working in a Wyoming library: there’s no way in h-e-double-hockey-sticks that I would have been hired if I’d said, “Oh, no, of course we shouldn’t filter the children’s computers.”
Jessa…hope all is well with you. Keep in touch, grand dudess.
Back when I first got my MLS and was out job hunting, I certainly felt that being a male of European descent was an excellent way to get blackballed in the library profession!
Are you now or have you ever been a ping pong player?
You have nothing to worry about:
http://www.ala.org/ala/research/librarystaffstats/diversity/libdirectors.cfm
Thanks for that link, Betty Barcode.
I was kidding, of course, and remembering an interview with a large library system. That was 1977, before the Regents v. Baake case overturned quotas in admissions and hiring by public institutions. The panel called me back after the interview and told me point-blank that I had interviewed wonderfully and they wished they could hire me, but that I was the wrong gender and race for the positions they needed to fill.
I was OK with it at the time. Past injustices needed to be rectified, even if at my personal expense. I eventually got two job offers, one with the system that initially turned me down on the basis of gender and race, two years after Baake. Have no idea if that figured into it. I then had to turn them down, since subsequent to the interview my wife had landed a new job, and we needed to stay put for that.
It’s been 34 years since 1977, and 12 years since the ALA data you linked to were gathered. (The website cites 1998 and 1999 as the dates of the surveys.)
In 1999, 35 percent of public library directors were male, even though males represented only 21 percent of the public library professional workforce. I wonder, even though this is still a pronounced disparity, if it represented an improvement over 1977.
I wonder what the figures for 2011 would show. I wonder why ALA hasn’t gathered more recent data.
Is gender discrimination the sole reason for the male advantage? Do women enter the profession later than men do? Are women still limited by marriages and relationships in which it is OK to move for his job but not for hers?
In any case, thanks, Betty B., for injecting a needed dose of reality.
Joe, when I was in library school in 71 we were told that males constitued 10% of the profession and 90% of the directorships. Quite different today.
Quotas are never good. I’ve always hated them and will forever detest them.
I’ve always wondered if the public libraries have the same glass elevators that education does for men because of the (horribly false) concern about men around children.
AE, for what it is worth, I think my system has been hiring more men lately than they did when I was hired. At least one of them is becoming known in our system for his really excellent book reviews and creative programming. Others who have been hired have their own strengths (well, except for one…I can’t figure out what that person’s stregths are…..) but that is true for some of the female hires too. I would hope that we don’t have a glass ceiling any more on men being children’s librarians. Maybe we can finally get more boys in the libraries!
JR-
I should introduce you to my 7 year old nephew. He eats books:). He has read the Percy Jackson series twice (because he “missed somethings”). And he absolutely loves reading the atlas and the encyclopedia. He has started with mythology now.
He has read the entire Star Wars series because he thinks the books are better than the movie.
I totally brainwashed that kid in his infancy.
You go AE!!!!!
FYI…I’m thinking b-day gifts, etc for the 7 year old…Riordan has started a spin off series to Percy Jackson meant for slightly younger kids. The Lost hero is the first of that series. I don’t THINK it’ll be too young for your nephew. For about the same age level as Percy Jackson, Riordan has started the Kane Chronicles with Egyptian gods and magicians being main characters. The first one is the Red Pyramid. The second is due out in a couple of weeks, Throne of Fire. However, I just finished my new favorite YA series which you might want to read then toss his way: The Bartimaeus Trilogy. I suggest waiting because some of the themes are more adult than I assume a 7 year old could handle. Having said that, he might just enjoy the series anyway, never mind if he “gets” what the themes are supposed to be…musings on just what is freedom, who defines who is a traitor, and what is real equality. Lovely hysterically funny series. Reading the footnotes is essential if you are to get most of your laughs! There is some death in the series so I seriously do suggest waiting till your 7 year old is at least a preadolescent if that concerns you. They are heroic deaths, all gory details left offscene so it depends on how comfortable you are with the general subject.
Atlas and encyclopedia? Introduce him to a well written dictionary that shows how language evolved! I still treasure the American Heritage my Dad gave me for a birthday present! He saw how much I enjoyed my copy and got his own copy and I now own both and cherish them for the memories.
Just want to mention that The Lost Hero is actually for older kids, not younger kids, compared to the Percy Jackson series. I have read aloud every word of all these books–hence my humble opinion.
One and only Anon: you could be right. I recall a review which I can’t find at home that mentioned The Lost hero being for younger readers but one review I located did mention Jason is 15 which would be older kids, not younger. I guess I’ll simply have to reread the series so as to get my facts straight! Thanks, I always like an excuse to reread favorite series! And I’m sorry for misleading you AE!
Joe-
When I decided to become a librarian, my mentor sat me down and said “You won’t find many men and you may be the only black person”…I was mortified. Not about being the only black person; I’ve been used to that, and it did impede some of my attempts. The “no men” scared me. I’ve never been good with large groups of women. Ever.
AE…I don’t know anyone who likes quotas.
AE – you have to set him onto the Heinlein Juveniles and the Edgar Rice Burroughs series.
Not to be all incendiary, but aren’t all three points really quite fond of each other (to the point of being essentially the same label much of the time)?
Don’t want other people to see the things you don’t want to see? Now, which groups in the world seem to think most often that they know what everyone else should be allowed to read/view/think… hmmm…
Tim, dude, you are proving my point. Don’t label and don’t stereotype. Many conservatives are libertarians who would espouse the freest of free religious principles and would be all for anything goes for intellectual freedom. Many Christians are extreme liberals who want government to fight the good fight for universal health care and education and libraries (I count myself in that box). I could go on Tim, but there are endless permutations when you start combining boxes.
Tim, The answer to that question may lie in where you live. Ask one question in Arkansas and you get one answer. Ask the same question in San Francisco and you get a quite different answer. Both areas are full of people who believe their position is the only right position. Who gets to decide.
I live in the SF area so I guess I’m right.
My (overzealous? oversimplified?) point was that censorship is more often connected to religion than to atheism/agnosticism, more often to the right than the left. And (whether it’s the fault of the media for selectively choosing what is ‘news’ or actually a problem within those groups), the voices of reason tend to be heard from quietly or not at all.
So, thanks for the reminder that you’re out there. And I hope you remind many people, and often.
Tim, censorship comes from the left as well as the right. I truly believe that ALA has censored conservative speakers.
yes Will but they do so quietly and through exclusion, so it’s easy to pretend it’s not happening!
In all fairness, I have censored a comment I didn’t agree with from my blog before. But it was the disingenuous tone, not the opinion itself, that caused me to do so. When one’s intention is to prevent discourse in any form, is censorship necessary? (Oh boy, I’m about to torpedo my career right here and now…)
Tim, you are opening up a most fascinating line of inquiry: what is censorship? One person’s selection is another person’s censorship. Censorship can be overt or covert. I find censorship to be one of the most difficult terms to define and to give examples for. It is very nuanced, and this is precisely why it ticks me off that we can’t have a nuanced discussion about censorship in the library profession because if you take any stand in favor of any form of exclusion (eg. child porn) you get called a censor and in this profession you might as well be a mass murderer.
Completely true. My transition from typical raging liberal snob to a ‘more conservative’ position was gradual, but I dumped ALA after my first year and never looked back. It wasn’t so much the liberal slant as it was the overall superior attitude. I don’t know if my library is any different, but I do know thay have distanced themselves from simply parroting ALA “suggested policies.” I think ALA is losing it’s grip. At least, I hope so.
On the religious front Wiccan is considered cool. My library long actively opposed putting anything religious in the library. The 200s was the smallest section. You would NEVER find anything the least bit fundamentalist, whether people asked for it or not. “We’re not a churtch librarty.” opined our selection librarian.
On the censorship front I must report that most citizens don’t buy the ‘filtering porn is censorship’ argument. They argue that our Founding Fathers never in their wildest dreams thought intellectual freedom would be used to justify pornography. There is a bit of this going around now as the mSM has picked up on porn in libraries. My local radio talk show host has re-discovered this issue. It’s neen on Drudge recently. These things are cyclic and I think we’re in one.
I’m reminded of the oft-quoted saying attributed to many different people, “If you are not a socialist before you are 40 you have no heart. If you are one after you are 40 you have no head.” If I had it to do over again, I would never become a librarian.
Mick, you brought much to the profession and your comments continue to enliven this blog. Why do you regreat a career in librarianship?
I agree completely with Mick’s last statement. If I had it to do over again I would never become a librarian. I would never recommend to anyone to consider the profession.
There’s a strong whiff of victimhood to this column and I apologize in advance, Will, but it sorely grates on me.
Not only have you had a successful career as a library director, you had one in public administration as well. How many librarians ever get a chance to run a library, much less an entire city? You also had a publishing career, occupying precious real estate on the pages on a leading professional journal and being solicited to write books, unlike most authors who paper the walls with rejection slips until they finally succumb to PublishAmerica.
Your highly enviable resume gives lie to any claim that being devout, church-going, conservative, and advocating for filters on children’s PCs will damage your career. In fact, you’re a walking advertisement for adopting these very things.
If being an atheist or buddhist is so central to professional success, please list all of atheists and buddhists who have risen to the top echelons of ALA. It’s kind of lonely down here in the trenches.
Betty, this is not about me at all. I would not characterize myself as a conservative. I am definitely a very strong liberal, and I never wrote about religion until after retirement. I did get a lot of hate mail about my filtering articles but that came after my resume was complete.
Apologies for mischaracterizing your politics.
But it strains credibility to claim that coming out as a churchgoer in a column would have damaged your career. Do you *really* believe that?
Hate mail is unpleasant, yes, but it damaged your career exactly how?
Betty, in educated circles, religion is seen as an anti-intellectual form of medieval superstition that defies reason and validates mythology. You have to read Bill Buckley’s book, “God and Man at Yale” to get the full flavor of what I am talking about. And as I stated, my filtering articles hurt me in the library profession but by then I was on the city management track where filtering out pornography from children’s libraries made perfect sense. A lot of my insights into how librarians disdain conservatism came from my city manager days when I had to make a point of engaging and understanding conservatives. The city manager profession has an entirely different set of norms from the library profession. Betty, I’m glad you are bringing all of this up because I see a blog post in the future about having worked in 2 very different worlds. Thanks.
Ha ha. That’s funny. This is actually in Will’s defense. As an actual conservative, one who most liklely votes Republican, thinks Obama is an idiot and socialists flat out evil, to my mind Will has drunk the Kool Aid. Although he enjoys a somewhast iconoclastic reputation, he’s still perfectly fits the mold of the profession.
And you’ll notice he’s not working in the field, just as I am not. When I was working I had to pretend I was a liberal because the social system in my workplace would have been intolerable for me if I had expressed my views openly. Even retired I have to tone it down because my wife is still working and I would create a problem for her if I did. This is not theoretical; It actually happened last election.
I’m actually on your side, Will.
mick, retirement gives you the luxury of saying things that you would have never said as a working stiff. I knew which lines to cross and which lines not to cross. I couldn’t afford a bunch of career limiting esperiences.
…and I have encountered similar people in Mick’s position who are ostracized if not demoted quietly because of what some thinks they believe. I had to assimilate and mask most of my life, and that crap wears on you. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
And quite frankly, it is one of the reasons why I can’t be part of “the profession”. I’ll just settle for being a plain old librarian who occasionally, when time and energy allows, prove a good sounding board for these folks, or stick up for them. Hey, us outsiders have to stick together or they’ll oust all of us.
Of course it doesn’t help that Republicans are always the ones trying to cut library funding.
But Jane that is exactly my point. The Republicans are the ones we should be engaging in dialog to keep them from cutting library services. I think it is very important to reach out to those who hold our pursestrings…very important.
Libraries go hand in hand with education yet education budgets are being slashed everywhere. An ignorant populace, unable to think critically, might be a good thing in some conservatives’ eyes.
The Republicans and libertarians want to disable anything that helps people think so you cannot “dialog” with them, Will. You seem to mean giving in to them when you say “dialog.”
You have a right too to be what you wish but anyone who wrote the initial blog you wrote that this thread is responding to is not really a liberal. You may be a liberal in the eyes of some fascists (who are everywhere these days) but no one ever advocated pornography just because they oppose censorship. There are too many errors in the original blog for me to get all of them covered today but as someone who is seen as a regular reader of this blog I just have to say that. As I say you have a right to be a conservative who calls himself a liberal. It is nice that you aspire to being liberal but this original blog post when read carefully shows you are not. I think you will see that.
The reason that many people who fit the categories you mention may not be seen as fit librarians is many of them will not have the respect for freedom that is basic to being a good librarian. They don’t read enough. Also, I see endless numbers of Bible-thumpering, censoring “librarians” who don’t read and don’t understand the importance of knowledge so I don’t think there is any black-balling of those who are undereducated in their field. But it would be their disrespect for learning, knowledge, for freedom that would (one would hope) hold them back in the library field. A professional librarian’s religious leaning should not be known by their public so right away if you know they are thumping their religion you know they are being unprofessional.
I think Brenda’s thread is pretty much emblematic of why I have a hard time with “the profession” and the “good librarian” mystique.
I have a hard time placing my perceived conservative or religious colleagues in a such a group when they, on the front lines, have shown themselves to be the opposite of everything she just said.
Man…why the hell am I hear???
Do not despair AE, some parts of the choir can’t hear anyone else over their own racket. So they think they are the only ones carrying the tune.
Whoops, no “Reply” link so this will appear out of context.
So, let’s see, Will, you argue that our “educated” profession disdains religion. So of course we condescend to Christian fiction:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6725434.html?industryid=47120
We dispense with certain databases:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6612296.html
And we laugh off religions bestsellers:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/communityacademiclibraries/889784-265/best_sellers_in_religion.html.csp
Honestly, coming out as religious in a society where 80-90% (studies vary) of people believe in god is about as brave as coming out as straight in a society where 90% of people are heterosexual.
What percentage of believers would have mde you feel safe enough to be open about your religious orientation? 95%? 99%?
Betty, belief in God does not equate to church membership. Ours is a post religious society. Look at all the colleges that had religious foundations and which are now secular. The mainline Protestant churches are dying, and only 25% of people who grew up Catholic go to Church. The only religious sector that is not losing members is the mega evangelical non sectarian church sector. Religion is almost completely dead in Europe.
Fiscal conservatives often do not believe that public libraries should exist or that they should not receive any public funding. Social conservatives and fundamental Christians seem to feel that the only reason for knowledge is to preserve and promote their own religious and social beliefs. Both groups, as others have stated, are involved in censorship attacks on libraries. And the ALA should invite people to speak who do not believe that libraries should exist why?
I’m sorry, but no matter what one’s personal political beliefs, if you do not believe in free access to all knowledge for everyone in society, then you are the enemy of libraries. The reason that many librarians were against filtering even for computers in children’s libraries was and is because once filters are in place, any kind of knowledge can easily be added to the list, until children would be forbidden to see anything but the beliefs of one small but powerful part of society. The current connection between birthers and conservatives shows that simple refusal to accept facts is the opposite of everything that libraries stand for.
Shelley, how do we get better funding for libraries if we don’t engage the folks who hold our purse strings? How do we proselytize for the benefits of intellectual freedom if we don’t engage the people who want to censor what we read? How do we possibly begin a dialog with middle America if we don’t take a strong stand to keep porn away from kids? Please answer, because I sincerely don’t understand where you are coming from.
Which merely ads further support for my advocation that ALA should build “the filter” Shelly.
Regardless I don’t think we are trembling on the brink of 1984 (remember that was 40 years ago almost) nor is Fahrenheit 451 imminent.
I think the most basic question to ask yourself regarding filters is this.
If it were your kid – would you want them stumbling onto X rated materials on the internet at School or the Public Library, where you weren’t around? If you can honestly say “I wouldn’t care.” Then fine you can be all righteous about filters.
If the answer is “Yah I’d kinda have a problem with that.” Then you probably will find yourself situated firmly w/ the majority of parents in the US of A.
I choose B without hesitation. If that makes me the enemy of libraries to you – fine – I’ll be happy to duel it out with you at ALA – I choose cream pies at 10 paces! or 25 lb. Sledgehammers in 10 feet of water.
Boris, A round of pie and their favorite hot beverage for everyone!
I don’t see HOW you have a dialog with people who do not believe that the library has any right to exist. If your purse strings are indeed controlled by people who feel that the only kind of knowledge that should be in the library is to be filtered through one narrow religious viewpoint, then eventually you will not have a public library. I don’t see any hope for this country if this kind of mindset continues to spread. And since there is very little money left in most local budgets, some towns have literally had to chose between having one or two police officers or continuing to fund a public library. Both situations are going to mean the end of small public libraries in many areas of the US.
Boris, when you’ve got a moment, please get John anything he’s thirsty for and keep it filled up. D’you need a hand back there? Seems like things are pretty busy.
The idea that librarians should support equal access to information is pretty recent. There’s no incompatibility between being an information elitist and a friend of libraries. That combination describes most thinkers (and librarians) up till the 19th century.
I also disagree with your characterization of “fiscal conservatives”. Most fiscal conservatives – the kind that vote and engage in civic endeavors that effect libraries – support libraries. They just don’t want to give them as much money as liberals. Fiscal conservatives who want to away with libraries are a minority of fiscal conservatives.
Your first paragraph is so true that it is ridiculous in its veracity. After doing research for a library history paper, I come to realize that information for all meant information for some, and we get to determine that some and what that some should be exposed to.
Blackballed? I don’t think so. Not commonly anyway. At least that hasn’t been my observation. Made uncomfortable at conference receptions, maybe. Not invited to give ALA keynotes, maybe. Blackballed is taking it a bit far, I think.
1) Conservative politics….We all know that the library profession is extremely liberal in its political leanings. … But it goes beyond that. Many librarians think that conservatives are selfish, stupid, unsophisticated, and ultimately evil people. Conservatism is not an alternative political viewpoint to the library profession; it is a curse. The unfortunate issue here is that our many city councils, county boards, and state legislatures are ruled by conservative politicians. These are the folks who hold our purse strings. Isn’t it time to stop demonizing them and start dialoging with them? …
Agreed that the library profession runs liberal. I do recall a study showing librarians to be more conservative than some other professions requiring graduate study, but that was back in the 70s, and I haven’t seen a formal study since. I would question “extremely” liberal. That is a little like the references I sometimes see to the “radical left.” What radical left? There hasn’t been such a thing in this country, in numbers significant enough to matter, since the 1970s. But I digress. The thing is, if there is demonization of conservatives among librarians, if there is a characterization of conservatives as evil and stupid, in my experience, at least, it’s nowhere near universal –certainly not at that extreme– and is confined to what (some) librarians say privately among themselves. I’ve never witnessed a patron being given second-class treatment because they expressed conservative views or wanted conservative materials. I’ve certainly never treated a patron differently for such reasons. When I’m on the desk, they get my best. When I’m in the back room cataloging, they get my best–meaning if the latest anti-Obama screed comes in with a patron hold, it goes to the head of the line, ahead of my favorite liberal and classical authors, even if I think it’s poisonous birther libel, and if it’s got crummy subminimal vendor cataloging it gets my best original cataloging treatment, which in all modesty is pretty damn good, because that’s what the ethics of my profession demand of me. And I don’t have to remind the people I supervise to do the same, because they have our professional ethics as deep in their bones as I do.
As for dialoging with the conservatives in our city councils, county boards, and state legislatures, that is what we do in Illinois. We have a pretty strong network for communicating with politicians at every level and of every political stripe. We have annual legislative breakfasts and bus library staff to the state capital every year to talk to legislators–Democratic and Republican. Fat lot of good it did us last year, but we do it. It’s one reason why–though I don’t have the distaste for ALA that some of my colleagues do–I have more respect and affection for my state library association. And I think it’s a significant reason why library services in Illinois are in straits somewhat less dire than in some other parts of the country.
No, I think the demonization–at least in the public forum–started on and is mostly coming from the conservative side. Look at the editorials in the Chicago Tribune (and I’m sure most of the country’s newspapers), where everything that is wrong with public finances, not to mention everything that is wrong with education, is laid at the feet of public employees. Look at the rants of the tea partiers. It’s liberals, public employees, the highly educated, the intellectual, who are being characterized as selfish, stupid and evil; liberalism that is portrayed not as an alternative political viewpoint but as a curse. Meanwhile the right wing of the conservative movement has made in substance the radical shifts that we liberals are accused of. Conservatives in the 1950s and the 1960s wanted to spend less money on education and libraries, say, and be more restrictive of what was taught or collected, than liberals; conservatives in the 2010s are destroying public-sector unions, undermining public schools, and watching as libraries shut down. Richard Nixon as President or, later, Jim Edgar as governor could be reasoned with and worked with to come up with reasonable compromises. George W. Bush as President? Scott Walker as governor?
2) Organized religion….The library profession is very wary of organized religion, because religious morality is the banner that many book censors wave. …
Honestly, I just don’t know what to say to this. I really wonder if there is a big geographical difference at play here–at least I’m speculating that maybe things are different here in and around Chicago. This is an old Catholic town, remember; we also have a prominent Jewish presence of long standing; and
Protestant ministers have long had a leading role in black communities here. If I name the first four nationally-prominent non-public universities that come to mind in and near the city, two are Catholic. Maybe I’m delusional, but it’s just not my perception that faith is a dirty word in intellectual life around here, and that includes in the library profession. If we don’t play up our religious ties, maybe that’s because we are cognizant of being one of a dwindling number of honest brokers in a religiously diverse society.
3) Censorship – Perhaps the most career limiting move that you could make in the library profession is to refuse to toe the line with the anything goes philosophy of the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom. I am still getting criticism heaped on me for a series of articles that I wrote in the 1990s advocating that filters be put on children’s room computers to block out pornography. Really! I’m pretty sure that the library profession is the only profession in the world that wants children to have access to pornography. …
Are you trying to be provocative with that last sentence, Will? Again, I’m going to speak to policies in Illinois and at my library. The ILA’s official stance is that we support local control and local decisions. The association objects to a statewide mandate for filters because it overrides local control–and diverts funds from direct library services, especially in poor areas. Both the association and, independently, our own library have conducted studies on filters and found that (a) they block access to useful information that most people would find appropriate even for children, along with objectionable stuff, and (b) an individual with a modicum of technical know-how–and you know that’s more likely to be our kids than us–can get past a filter if they want to. That’s a nuanced position that doesn’t always play well on the evening news, but it’s a lot different than wanting kids to have access to porn. I was writing up a long explanation of our library’s policies and procedures, but as I’m not a regular in public service, I’d be concerned about misrepresenting something. Suffice it to say we make reasonable and, I think, successful efforts to protect kids from seeing pornography in our library, and also to keep adults from having to see it who don’t want to; and we both officially and informally encourage parents to supervise their children while they are with us, definitely including their internet use.
No, if one wants to get blackballed in the library profession, I think the old tried-and-true methods still work the best: be grossly and flagrantly unethical; be utterly incompetent or utterly unwilling to pull your weight; cultivate a reputation as an insufferable pill that nobody in their right mind wants to work with. These methods don’t always work; I have known a couple of administrators over the decades (none at all recently, though) who fit a couple of those descriptions. But they are more reliable than politics or religion, they really are.
Thank you. I heartily agree and wish I could have stated it so eloquently.
Great defense of librarians. Living in Illinois, I agree with you about “creating a dialog”. The only thing a politician in Illinois hears or responds to is money or votes. Give then lots of both and they will help you sell pornography to children.
Are we really trying to protect children when we censor or are we really protecting the sensibilities of adults who do not accept that sexuality is an area of life that has forever changed? By the time a child is an adult they have seen pornography and may not find it offensive or interesting.
Doug-
I think you may be on to something there.
By the time I was 12, three of my best friends were on their first pregnancy, I knew more about sex than I cared to know, and I could tell you not only where to get condoms, but where to get drugs and illegal guns. I knew what porn meant at that age, but didn’t really seek it out. Although I don’t think children should have pornography readily accessible or that porn filters are horrible things, I would venture to say, having worked with kids from a variety of different backgrounds, that a good portion of the “child” populace know more about sexuality than their parents would give them credit for, and they probably didn’t learn an ounce of it from what folks consider porn.
I work in a college library with a large computer lab that only students, staff, and faculty members can use. I’ve seen both male and female students looking at what I would consider porn. Unless a child is near (rarely), someone complains (never had that happen), or it is violent (never had that happen either) I do nothing. I don’t consider this intellectual freedom or me not being a censor. Personally, I just really don’t care. That may sound horrible, but I really don’t. However, they are not “children”…so my opinion is probably work an empty corn husk.
Well done!
RA…good comment. The issue of blocking children’s computers is an outgrowth of the ALA. Not only did our organization take a strong stance against filtering but got very involved in the lawsuits challenging the feds on their filtering mandate. The ALA’s position was not one of local control but rather censorship, pure and simple. (My guess is that the OIF still opposes all forms of filtering in the childrens room.) I was shocked because even the most liberal senators, congressmen, and judges were in favor of filtering. Our profession took a huge hit because of this and I do not think has fully recovered. I was in the middle of this controversy at the time and still have the scars. I still get librarians coming up to me and giving me grief.
Doug, sexuality is an area of life that will NEVER change. It’s older than we are and we still dance to its tune. The liberal belief that we can reinvent sexuality to suit our needs, or that if we’re open about it no one will get hurt is as harmful as conservatives pretending it doesn’t exist.
Wow. So what would you do with people like me who are of no particular affiliation but “reinvent sexuality” or parents like mine who chose to be open about sexuality so I wouldn’t do anything stupid, which I didn’t, thank goodness? Or did they make me stupid because I chose to “reinvent sexuality”? I’m not even sure what you mean about NEVER changing or “dance to its tune.”
Bah, politics are for those that are smarter than I because…well…Wow.
AE, I don’t think attitudes toward sexuality evolve. They just change. Each generation thinks it’s an improvement on its predecessor – more open or more virtuous as the case may be. Sometimes the changes takes centuries or affect only certain segments of a society, but there’s nothing new.
I also don’t think you can defang sexuality. Yes, individuals can make wise choices, but someone’s always going to get hurt. It’s like working with explosives.
We dance to its tune because it shapes and drives us in ways we aren’t aware of. It shaped and drove us into what we are now as species and we had no choice about that.
I’m bowing out of this one too, but thanks for your POV.
As I read this diatribe, I could see you typing it on your typewriter, with your sweater around your shoulders, glasses on with a fake pearl glasses-holder strap around your neck, bun tightly wrapped on the back of your head. You have to be the “old” paradigm that I heard about in library school. Granted, I’ve only been a school librarian for 16 years, but what you have described I have RARELY seen. If a librarian holds to what you’ve said, I just hope they’re close to retirement. I don’t know what library profession you claim to be part of, but true librarianship is alive and well in the public school system!
Dude…you’re right. I’m old. I think you need to translate.
You are not in an academic library. It is alive and well in academia.
Paula, ding ding ding! You’ve won today’s prize, which is… um… *looks around desk hastily* Four paper clips and this fetching stapler! Don’t spend it all in one place.
Perhaps your observations are true for those who want to take part in national library leadership positions but if you go to libraries in most communities not located in an urban setting, you’ll find directors & staff who deal with everyday issues, well, every day. Which means their computers have filters, they discuss Christian fiction books–and their own faith–with their patrons, & buy books written by Fox commentators & Friends to put on their shelves. Maybe folks are black balled by the ALA for such stands but many of the librarians in my state go more by community standards. They’d rather be denounced by a national organization than their community.
Which isn’t to say they don’t stand up against censorship attempts, have fair & balanced collections, & don’t allow religion to take over their libraries. It’s just that they are too busy running their libraries on shrinking budgets to really care about running for ALA offices. None of them will probably ever be named Librarian of the Year by Library Journal but they are the top librarians in my book!
(how many ALA presidents routinely do bathroom clean-up at their libraries? That’s part of the job description for most small-town directors. Running toilets are a bigger priority than arguments against filters)
CarolAnn…you make an incredible amount of sense and as always you have given me a new insight. You are right – there is a huge gap between professional library culture in the trenches and professional library culture in the ALA ivory tower. Amen. I hope everyone reads your comment.
1. I agree that any librarian dealing with legislators, city councils, boards, and other governing groups or individuals can get seriously burned by being outspokenly active at one political extreme or the other.
2. I’m going to disagree about the impact of one’s religion, but that is in good part because I am a lifelong Episcopalian and we mostly get a free pass because Episcopalians are strong library supporters and are notoriously reticent about evangelizing.
3. Historically, ALA was the voice of reason in defending intellectual freedom, but that was in the age of books, not the age of the Internet. ALA did not wake up to the damage it was self-inflicting in its failure to understand the Internet until tremendous damage had been done to ALA’s credibility.
My observation, though, is that librarians who realize that, in a free society, the values and rights of others must be genuinely, civilly, and thoughtfully respected are able to uphold the principles of intellectual freedom in a more effective way than those who respond to challenges with unthinking knee-jerk opposition.
Wayne, I’m intrigued by #3. You give me hope. Do you really think our profession now firmly supports putting filters on children’s computers?
Not firmly, no.
Oh my, how I want to respond to this but my brain is overloaded with contrary thoughts. My first coherent thought was something I read somewhere sometime that stuck with me: As they mature, women become more liberal and men become more conservative. I think this is essentially though not universally true.
People who are hurt or offended when their conservative beliefs are derided as negative, pro-business, pro-wealth and anti-intellectual should quit whining and take a good look at their “leaders” and what they espouse. If you aren’t pro-business then don’t support union-bashing conservative Republican politicians. If you don’t want too be seen as anti-intellectual, then don’t support those who would crush school and library funding in favor of tax breaks for the top 1% or who would exempt the military from budget cuts.
Not all people who believe in a particular religion and belong to organized religious entities are superstitious cretins blindly following a charismatic leader. In some ways I envy those with strong organized faith. But many organized religions are sorely lacking in tolerance for the “other”, however that is defined. If there is one all knowing, all powerful, and loving higher power, surely that entity is not spiteful and revengeful to people who have differing beliefs.
IMHO, only a government has the ability to censor. Whether or not I purchase a particular title has no effect on the availability of that title to anyone. I don’t have a problem with filters on the children’s computers. I do have issues with what the filters actually filter out. I agree with whomever said librarians should have developed the first and, it would be hoped, best filter. I don’t want kids (or adults) happening onto porn. However, in all my computer use I have never stumbled into a porn site; I have encountered suggestive pop-up ads, but they are controllable without filters. I remember an interview years ago in which I was asked if the library should carry Playboy in its magazine collection, and should it be held behind the desk. I answered that, if the library chose to carry Playboy it should also carry Playgirl (is that still around?) and neither should be behind the desk; I als said I wasn’t particularly interested in providing either since people who wanted them could easily buy them at the corner market. I didn’t get the job, and I’ve always presumed that answer was the reason why.
In closing, I think it is time and past time that we all examine our beliefs, both dearly held and those we find antipathetic. I think we would all find reason to doubt and cause to change at least some of those beliefs.
Boris, in the name of civility, a round for the house of whatever they wish to imbibe! And a double for you for having to listen to all the sturm und drang and blather.
Boris is indeed a saint!
Lynne…I am very proud of you. I know this comment was a tough one to articulate but we are all about the dialog here and you advanced the dialog nicely. Thanks!
As far as conservative politics are concerned, the conservative elected officials in this state, for years, have always felt that public libraries were never necessary for the community, even though I’m sure there are plenty of Republican supporters who certainly wouldn’t appreciate not having a public library within their reach. I, personally, feel a lot of animosity toward the Republican-dominated government here. Because they are so stubborn & “business-oriented”, there is no “dialoguing” with a Republican-dominated government that will make drastic cuts regardless of how valuable the services are to the people of those communities. I also think the right wingers deserve that rep because, although both sides voted overwhelmingly for the USA PATRIOT Act (without reading it), it’s the Republicans who make the most bluster about how unnecessary public libraries are to the community.
As for organized religion, yes, I am a Catholic and I do attend Church but I never felt the need to advertise my beliefs anywhere but, then again, I always considered myself like my mother in that respect. I have no problem keeping my religious beliefs separate from my work.
As to censorship, I guess I haven’t been exposed to this aspect enough to comment but I’m sure that librarians have had to use discretion when selecting library materials, lest they face challenges from the community and, perhaps, their superiors. Obviously it’s something that librarians have to have in the back of their mind throughout their career but I can’t imagine it being an issue that could really make or break a librarian’s career.
I think there needs to be a straight Christian men’s RT with ALA. In this profession, you’re a minority and probably the most underrepresented group. Who represents your views? The Office of Diversity is falling asleep on the job!
I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or not…but I want to be a member of that group. They may actually make me feel like a “fit librarian”.
I was totally serious about the group being underrepresented in the profession. But I can’t see the diversity folks caring all that much about the perspectives of said group. That would contradict ALA’s other objectives and be, well, too diverse.
Is the SIRT (Social Irresponsibility Round Table) still functional? I know they ruffled a lot of feathers at the last ALA conference when they arrived in 11-mpg SUVs and switched out the low-flow showerheads at the hotel. Those things, plus recycling nothing, eating lots of red meat, and demanding an official ALA declaration opposing HOV lanes, did not endear them to Council.
I had been completely unaware of SIRT. Probably because I’ve been tied up with trying to organize BAFJRT (Beer and Fart Jokes Round Table).
Sorry, but that BAFJRT thing was funny.
Hmmm… BAFJRT. Men only, right?
…and honorary males (come on, I need this!)
*tears running down my face I am laughing so hard* I would totally join both the SIRT and BAFJRT!
A.E., you’re in.
Joe, I’m chairing SIRT’s “Put Down that Damn Book and Turn on the TV!” taskforce. We’re having a lot of success with our outreach to elementary and middle schoolkids. And I’ve just found a great graphic designer with terrific sense of social irresponsibility who’s working on our mascot, Pasty the Couch Potato. Once our project gets off the ground using ALA funding we’ll pitch to it to the private sector and retire rich!
This discussion has become a conservative vs. liberal slap down, but Will’s original contention was that a librarian who creates an internet presence featuring conservative views is less likely to be hired or promoted than a librarian who reveals his or her liberal politics online.
I have to agree, if only on impressionistic grounds. But I also agree on agree on a practical level because I won’t reveal my politics, which are probably more center center than center right and in any case change according to circumstances, to anyone who might hire or promote me.
That’s partly because I think discussions about politics and religion should be avoided at work. But also because I’ve been in the profession for years and I know most of my professional colleagues are politically left of me. If I were a leftist in a right wing setting, I would feel the same way. Librarians and liberals are no better or worse than any other group when it comes having an open mind.
In any case, I think open minds are over rated. I strive to be fair minded rather than open minded.