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 The elected officials tried to defund the library, but then the community pushed back and the takeover was withdrawn.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.
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 The elected officials tried to defund the library, but then the community pushed back and the takeover was withdrawn.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.