I understand the concern about local accountability, and you're absolutely right that libraries should be responsive to their communities. But the data here suggests the broader community was actually supporting the library.
Most public libraries follow professional collection development standards that try to serve their entire diverse community including families who want those books available. It's a tough balance, but the goal is usually having something for everyone rather than letting any single group determine what everyone else can access.
The community seems to have spoken pretty clearly by successfully defending their library. Sometimes the loudest voices aren't representative of the broader sentiment.
Your comment is inline with how the libraries operate, and I can't tell if some of the others here are just a little homophobic or just woefully misinformed about how libraries function.
Books that aren't being circulated frequently enough get weeded and removed from the collection, usually once or twice a year. Moreover, if books are requested frequently from other branches, or have long hold times, then that volume will typically be added to a collection.
I don't think your understanding is accurate. Their positions are overwhelmingly in support of freedom of information, freedom of speech, privacy, and the public domain. They're opposed to anything that locks down and restricts information, generally oppose unnecessary copyright extension and overbearing copyright laws and rules (including the DMCA and DRM). They have a wide array of positions that are both frequently aligned with and opposed by both major American political parties.
People distort the ALA's position as pushing LGBTQ books on children, but that's just the most in the limelight right now because those are the books that are being challenged the most, and the ALA is generally against book banning.
The ALA is aligned largely with classical liberalism, not modern progressivism, and most American conservatives I knew before 2016 would have agreed with their positions on freedom of information and personal privacy.
The ALA is a ideological organization that advocates for open access to information and resources. Those damn communist, they always want well informed citizens!!
While we're at it someone should really buy out and shut down wikipedia! Have you seen their article on Hitler? They make him sound like a criminal!!
Not at all, accountability works both ways. The elected officials tried to defund the library, but then the community pushed back and the takeover was withdrawn. That's exactly how democratic accountability should work.
Libraries need to follow constitutional principles and serve their whole community, not just the loudest subset. The broader community clearly supported keeping their award-winning library intact.
No. Libraries exist to serve the communities they are in. Whether it be the public, specialized fields, or universities. Collections are curated by librarians based on the needs of the community. That isn't a decision that is an elected official is qualified to make.
I understand the concern about local accountability, and you're absolutely right that libraries should be responsive to their communities. But the data here suggests the broader community was actually supporting the library.
Most public libraries follow professional collection development standards that try to serve their entire diverse community including families who want those books available. It's a tough balance, but the goal is usually having something for everyone rather than letting any single group determine what everyone else can access.
The community seems to have spoken pretty clearly by successfully defending their library. Sometimes the loudest voices aren't representative of the broader sentiment.
Your comment is inline with how the libraries operate, and I can't tell if some of the others here are just a little homophobic or just woefully misinformed about how libraries function.
Books that aren't being circulated frequently enough get weeded and removed from the collection, usually once or twice a year. Moreover, if books are requested frequently from other branches, or have long hold times, then that volume will typically be added to a collection.
This is against the ethics standards of the ALA, and the entire philosophy that underpins libraries as a whole.
[flagged]
I don't think your understanding is accurate. Their positions are overwhelmingly in support of freedom of information, freedom of speech, privacy, and the public domain. They're opposed to anything that locks down and restricts information, generally oppose unnecessary copyright extension and overbearing copyright laws and rules (including the DMCA and DRM). They have a wide array of positions that are both frequently aligned with and opposed by both major American political parties.
People distort the ALA's position as pushing LGBTQ books on children, but that's just the most in the limelight right now because those are the books that are being challenged the most, and the ALA is generally against book banning.
The ALA is aligned largely with classical liberalism, not modern progressivism, and most American conservatives I knew before 2016 would have agreed with their positions on freedom of information and personal privacy.
7 replies →
The ALA is a ideological organization that advocates for open access to information and resources. Those damn communist, they always want well informed citizens!!
While we're at it someone should really buy out and shut down wikipedia! Have you seen their article on Hitler? They make him sound like a criminal!!
6 replies →
And why stop at LGBTQ books? Remove anything that I or my religion don't like!
And why stop at removing them? Burn them!
Whoa, so much smoke! Better repeatedly wave it away from my chest with an outstretched, downward-facing palm!
So are you saying they shouldn't be accountable to elected officials?
Not at all, accountability works both ways. The elected officials tried to defund the library, but then the community pushed back and the takeover was withdrawn. That's exactly how democratic accountability should work.
Libraries need to follow constitutional principles and serve their whole community, not just the loudest subset. The broader community clearly supported keeping their award-winning library intact.
No. Libraries exist to serve the communities they are in. Whether it be the public, specialized fields, or universities. Collections are curated by librarians based on the needs of the community. That isn't a decision that is an elected official is qualified to make.
That seems orthogonal to what I am saying, which is that:
1. Book banning/burning is really bad (duh).
2. The worst book banners/burners throughout history have employed the same justifications as you now employ.
To the question about accountability: Who knows, but it isn't as important as avoiding book banning/burning.