Get on line. Behind me.
I’m behind her husband.
And this line doesn’t seem to be moving.
Again, this disconnect between the community and the library would never happen because no one would ever look that closely at the collection. Your hypothetical is so far removed from reality as to be useless.
It’s interesting how you keep saying “a librarian” and not “a library collection”. If there’s a major disconnect between the beliefs or interests of the librarian and those of the community majority then the community would just have to deal with having a “weird” librarian. The good townspeople shouldn’t be allowed to run him or her out of town on a rail for being different.
I am not going to play this game. Look back over your own posts if you can’t remember what you’ve already said.
The community does not have a right to a library that contains only books that will be offensive to none. That is not the purpose of a library, and such an institution would be a waste of tax dollars.
The community is also not a monolith. It is made up of individuals with different interests. Even if a majority of the town’s citizens objected to And Tango Makes Three (the most challenged book of 2007) it doesn’t mean that not a single person in that town would want to read the book. Even in a small town there could be a kid with two dads, or who had a gay uncle, or a kid who just likes penguins. The library is there to serve that kid’s interests too. Seeing as how it’s pretty easy for people to avoid reading books that they don’t like but impossible for them to read a book that they would like but isn’t there, a community is best served by a library that carries a variety of books – including ones that some people would find objectionable.
If that’s your position you were doing a very poor job of expressing it before now. It is in just such communities that a librarian is likely to be criticized for having, say, too many books about evolution and not enough about creationism. In post #249 you said that in these cases the community has not only the right but the responsibility to replace the librarian.
Maybe you weren’t thinking carefully then about all the things “x” and “y” could represent in a library. Maybe you were imagining too many romance novels and not enough mysteries, or too many cookbooks and not enough theater books. But if the job security of public librarians relied on pandering to local majority opinions, the result would be a lot of libraries where no one could check out The Origin of the Species or Our Bodies, Ourselves or even Harry Potter.
My mayor did something similar - it wasn’t good. Turns out its hard to find competent professionals willing to be your city manager, city finance director and chief of police - even in a suburb of St. Paul. So if you fire the competent ones you have, and replace them with people whose primary criteria for hire was sharing your philosophy, you get a finance director who - in the nine months he was employed - never did any work (or had any work done) reconciling bank statements or doing budget to actual reports - so that nine months later when you vote in a new city council, you discover the city has millions less then they thought they had.
Ask and ye shall receive I guess. 
Seems the Frontiersman paper has been besieged with requests for this article so they posted it yesterday (link below). From the article I think it is clear the Palin DID talk about banning books and on more than one occasion because rather than deny the allegations she calls the remark “rhetorical”. I might buy that if Palin asked once but she broached the topic more than once. Why would anyone ask a “rhetorical” (I am using quotes since as noted it is an improper usage of the word but I think we know what she meant) question more than once over the course of a few weeks? Not to mention it is a helluva thing to ask rhetorically of a librarian except over drinks in a bar.
Anyway, read it and make up your own mind.
Great! Thanks.
OK, if this is true then Palin’s off the hook “Palin said she asked Emmons how she would respond to censorship.” *If *she was just testing Emmons as to what Emmons would do, it’s perfectly OK.
So, given this source, I think it’s over. Mind you, I am still a little suspicious, but given as that was 12 years ago, I think this is the best we could come up with.
If push comes to shove, I disagree. Though I would take great pains to convince them of the benefits of having a broad spectrum of books. Especially books they do not agree with.
I’ll know to take you less seriously from now on, and that some of your claims will be only that.
I agree with everything except that it would be a waste. It would/could still be extremely effective. It is not the primary purpose of a library to provide material that is offensive to some people.
I basically agree, but here’s the crux of it. If a book is not take out of the library for a year, two, three, five, would it make sense to replace it with a book that the community would be read more often? (Let’s restrict this to novels, as they’re not likely to be read in the library itself.)
I don’t think the two notions are mutually exclusive. Librarians should try to ensure breadth in their collection. At the same time, the library is a tool to be used. As are the books. If a Librarian sacrifices one too much at the expense of the other, they are not serving the community as well as they could. I have been exploring one half of that equation. And I maintain that the primary responsibility for a library goes to the community itself. They are spending money for a “thing” that serves the community. It is incumbent upon them to make it serve them as well as possible.
You’re assuming that the scenario include pandering. While that would not be good, and the Librarian would be remiss in his duties for doing so, it is also possible that he be an ideologue first, and a Librarian, second. If you doubt that this is a more than a remote possibility, just look at teachers in our universities. Stories of bias among trained professionals abound.
Eh…guess we are seeing it differently.
It is one thing if you and I ask Justin_Bailey (who I think is a librarian but if not pretend he is) how he feels about censorship. JB knows we have zero say in his life or role as a librarian.
It is quite another thing when your boss asks you that question and you know your job is in jeopardy (as we know from Palin axing pretty much everyone from the previous administration). More, the question was not just asked once to see if Emmons answered “correctly” to prove she, as any librarian, was opposed in general to censorship. The question was asked more than once…a supposedly rhetorical question at that. To me that implies offering a chance to give an answer more along the lines of one Palin wanted to hear and the first answer was not it.
Further, they say that Emmons was working to get the book challenge policies in line with a broader (or at least more geographically encompassing) policy that she described as a good policy. So, if Palin wanted to challenge books clearly there was a path in place to do just that. Why ask the librarian, whose job is threatened, about censoring books?
Looks to me like Palin wanted to end-run the system and was looking for a way to become sole arbiter of what books the library contained. And that, to me, is a huge ding against her.
DrDeth:
I should note that there is more to the article than what I posted. Board rules do not permit posting the whole article so I just posted the first few paragraphs is all (rather than my usual cherry picking the best parts). From your response I am not sure it was clear there was more than what I posted that you may find relevant as well.
Follow the link for the whole thing.
Whack, you found it, go ahead, post the best parts. Some people need to be led to water. Some people need their noses rubbed into it.
I gotta agree with this. With just allegations, how do we know that the situation wasn’t like this:
A couple of Wallsalian: Mayor Palin! I am really disgusted that our library has <insert book name>. Get rid of it!
Later at the town meeting, Mayor Palin mentions that ther are some books that people don’t like. Should the library consider getting rid of them?
Town Librarian: Absolutely not you book-banning Nazi!
Palin: Hokay. Next topic is . . .
Since Deth reposted the quote with a broken link in another thread, saying that it supported him, here. For those, like him, too lazy to read the article.
A library’s purpose is not to try to provide offensive material true. Thing is what one person considers offensive can be wholly different from another person. One person might find a book with photos of nude women in Renaissance paintings offensive. Another may find any religious discussions on anything other than Christianity offensive. Another may find any books on hunting offensive.
If the library tries to pander to all these the library ceases to exist as a useful source of information. Its role in society falls apart.
Because Emmons says it wasn’t. Now, its possible that Emmons misinterpreted - that Palin was indeed speaking rhetorically and Emmons took it wrong. But its also possible that Emmons, who was the only other person in the conversations (two conversations) and could pick up on tone and body language as well as heard the exact words, picked up the intent - and that Palin - when she realized that Emmons was not going to roll over, and might, in fact, involve the ACLU, she backpedalled with “oh, that wasn’t what I meant at all.”
We do know that OTHER evangelicals have called for the removal of books from the public library system - that doesn’t mean Palin did - but in light of her “right with God” speech, it doesn’t seem out of character either.
Did you read the article? If this was a conversation over a beer at the pub maybe you’d have something. But it wasn’t. It was a conversation between a boss and her employee and the boss was threatening to fire the librarian. Not specifically over the book banning thing but in general and an answer of, “Sure, I’ll remove some books you don’t like” seems the implicit answer sought if Emmons wanted to keep her job.
Palin knew there was a challenge policy in place. Asking a rhetorical question on this, twice, makes no sense on the face of it. Further, other quotes from Palin seemed to suggest she was pressuring Emmons to do what Palin wanted.
(bolding mine)
You disagree that librarians should not be fired solely because of their personal beliefs and interests? Well, thank goodness there are laws in place that protect us from that kind of thing.
The quote from you that I was responding to didn’t say anything about the books in the library. I was careful to point that out. You said “librarian”, not “library collection”. A librarian who holds minority views is not the same thing as a library that only includes materials that support those views. Librarians are trained to make purchasing decisions based on factors other than “I’d like to read that book myself” or “I agree with the message of this book.” Librarians, like other professionals, should be judged based on how well they do their job and not who they vote for or what (if any) church they go to.
If a librarian were failing in his or her duties then that would, in most communities, be a matter for the library board to deal with. But while “there are no books about religion at the library” would be a legitimate complaint to bring to the board, “the librarian is an atheist” is not.
I’d be curious to see a list of books guaranteed to be offensive to no one. I do not think it would be a very long list.
LIBRARIANS ALREADY DO THAT. Is this what you’ve been worried about all along, libraries wasting space on unpopular old novels? That in some library there might be a battered copy of The Bridges of Madison County, unread since 1996, preventing the library from purchasing Stephenie Meyers’s latest bestseller? That doesn’t bear much resemblance to anything you’ve said previously, but okay. Let me assure you that any library, if seriously pressed for space, would be willing to get rid of a work of fiction that had not circulated for many years in order to make room for a new book. The only likely exception would be if the unpopular old novel in question were a literary classic (e.g. War and Peace) and the librarian felt that it would be an embarrassment not to have a copy of it. Even this would be considered old-fashioned by some librarians, though.
I am beginning to wonder if you’ve ever even been to a library, because you seem to have a very bizarre idea of how they operate. I suppose it’s commendable that you are interested in learning more, but this thread is not the best place for it. Maybe you should start a GQ thread on “How do librarians decide which new books to buy and which old books to discard?”
Is it wrong to be hoping for an Imhotep attack about now?
Not at all, especially considering my strong personal resemblance to Rachel Weisz*.
(*We are both women with two arms, two legs, etc. It’s striking, really.)
I am pretty sure Palin meant Hypothetical, not Rhetorical.
*
“To me that implies…Looks to me”* If we were there and heard it in context, then we could argue what it implied, how it looked. Otherwise we pretty much have to go with it’s literal meaning esp as there was no follow-up by Palin to actually try to ban anything.
Emmons was the head of the Library (and Museum )dept. not the Librarian, per se. Quibble, yes, I know.
I admit I am suspicous of Palin, but th
I am pretty sure Palin meant Hypothetical, not Rhetorical.
*
“To me that implies…Looks to me”* If we were there and heard it in context, then we could argue what it implied, how it looked. Otherwise we pretty much have to go with it’s literal meaning esp as there was no follow-up by Palin to actually try to ban anything.
Emmons was the head of the Library (and Museum )dept. not the Librarian, per se. Quibble, yes, I know.
I admit I am suspicous of Palin, but this was a clear swifboat attack by Kilkenny. It isn’t a real issue. There are real issues, mind you.