Well…Emmons said she would call in the ACLU if people tried to ban books. Pretty sure Palin realized there was no way the librarian was going to bend. So her not trying to ban anything is not really meaningful. Seems clear to me she wanted to though and was being thwarted.
Swifboat by Kilkenny?
Did you not see the news article linked here? That was not written by Kilkenny and Kilkenny was not even mentioned. It was reported in a tiny town so hard for them to miss. There is no record of Palin disputing the facts, just the interpretation of what she meant.
Let’ s try not to mischaracterize my position, okay, Dearie? Their personal beliefs are their own business. If they start to dictate the collection they have it becomes the community’s business. My statement clearly went to the latter, as any fair reading of it would conclude.
Ah, so now you see the distinction you just ignored a second ago. I guess that’s good.
Very good, again. And we agree. My point only went not to one’s personal biases, but biases that might be seen in their work, i.e., their selection of books.
Wow. We agree, again. Of course, I never said anything in support of that position. I’d ask you to point out where I did, but you’ve already expressed a preference for making claims out of the blue and not feeling it incumbent to substantiate your random assertions.:rolleyes:
For someone who has spent a great deal of time around books, you have surprising difficulty reading for comprehension. You seem intent on ascribing to me positions I do not hold and contorting what I write to fit some evil idea of “book banner” or “enemy of free speech”. If you can see that you’ve done just that and stop it, we can continue the discussion. If not, you may have at it on your own.
Yes I read the article, but I did not see anything where Emmons thought her job was on the line, but I did see her responses like:
“I’m not trying to suppress anyone’s views,” Emmons said. “But I told her (Palin) clearly, I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves.” emphasis added
“And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved, too.”
“I’m hoping it was just a trial balloon,” Emmons said, “because the free exchange of information is my main job, and I’ll fight anyone who tries to interfere with that.” emphasis added
A tad confrontational isn’t she? Makes me wonder if she is read more into Mayor Palin’s comments than was there.
“But on Monday, Oct. 28, Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books. This was during a weak when Palin was requesting resignations from all� the city’s department heads as a way of expressing loyalty.”
Not really. If the question was truly posed as a hypothetical question and Emmons answered that way I would think Palin would say something like, “Whoa! Easy there killer! Just asking!” But that was not the case suggesting her response was appropriate.
*No, your statement clearly did not, because it was about “a Librarian” and not a library collection.
I am not the one who can’t tell the difference between a person and a group of books.
I don’t see why it’s my responsibility to remind you of what you’ve already said, especially not when you can easily look at your own posts in this thread without my help. But I’ve already seen tonight’s episode of Law & Order, so here’s a few highlights.
Post #185:
You don’t say anything about the books in the library reflecting the community’s tastes, only the expert, i.e. the librarian, reflecting those tastes. You’re specifically talking about hiring a new librarian, not evaluating a current one, so the librarian’s management of the collection to date can’t be the issue. Since the present tense (“reflects”) is used it can’t mean “they have the right to hire one who will reflect their tastes when it comes to purchasing decisions” either. I don’t see any way “they have the right to hire one that reflects their tastes” could here mean anything other than “they have the right to hire one who personally shares their tastes already”.
I made this understanding of your words clear in my reply #187, where I said “No, I do not agree that a librarian’s personal tastes or beliefs should be a factor in hiring.” Your reply #190 quoted this statement, so you must have read it. This would have been a fine time to correct me if I was mistaken in my interpretation, but instead your response was:
Should I not have taken this to mean “a conservative community should be able to hire a librarian with conservative beliefs, and a liberal community one with liberal beliefs”?
#294:
Again, not a word about the library books, only the librarian candidates and how they should not be hired unless they fit in with the community.
#298:
Once more it is the person holding the job of librarian, not the available selection of books, that you describe as not being in harmony with the community.
I pointed this out in my reply, #302, and said “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.”
In your response (#306) you again had nothing to say about librarians having the right to their own opinions. You quoted my above words from #302 and said:
You said it yourself, you disagreed with my position that “The good townspeople shouldn’t be allowed to run [the “weird” librarian] out of town on a rail for being different.”
So now in post #323 you finally say that a librarian’s personal beliefs are his or her own business. Great. We’re in perfect agreement then, librarians should not be hired or fired based on their personal views and interests. Why you spent so much time saying the opposite is beyond me.
That’s a very interesting use of quotation marks. It’s almost as if you were trying to suggest that I actually called you a book banner and an enemy of free speech. Remind me again which one of us makes things up out of the blue?
As for my reading comprehension, it is excellent. Sadly, my psychic powers are not so good. I am unable to read your mind, I can only read what you have actually written. When you said that a community has the right to base hiring decisions on the librarian’s tastes then I took you at your word. It doesn’t require any contortion to make that look like an endorsement of discriminatory employment practices…especially since this thread is about a librarian who was fired for her political beliefs.
Emmons responded just as she should have. Palin asked how she would feel about library books being censored, and it was Emmons’s duty as library director to “uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources” (Principle II, ALA Code of Ethics).
From a librarian’s perspective, a mayor asking “Would you be able to live with it if I started censoring books?” is like asking the chief of police “Would you be cool with it if I started having people I dislike arrested?” Palin was asking Emmons to commit a very serious ethical violation, and that merits a strong response.
Very true, but two of her quotes she refers to “fighting” and another talked about the ACLU which makes me at least suspicious that Emmons escalated the discussion instead of giving the professional reply you gave.
I see where you’re coming from, but I have often heard librarians refer to “fighting censorship”. One of the American Library Association pages about Banned Books Week is titled What You Can Do to Fight Censorship and Keep Books Available in Your Libraries. Emmons may just have been falling back on a stock phrase.
If Palin’s public persona was then what it is now (“pit bull”, “barracuda”), I could also understand why Emmons might think she needed to use strong phrasing. When Mayor Moose Slayer wants to censor your books it’s no time to play the shrinking violet. It’s possible Emmons did blow her top at Palin, but I’m inclined to think otherwise.
Since I don’t believe Sarah Palin or anyone else possesses psychic powers, someone being fired for their personal political beliefs never even crossed my mind. Everything I wrote had to do with instances when those personal political beliefs were manifested in a particular collection.
I see that a fundamental misunderstanding has led us to speak past one another. I apologize for my part in that. I think the only point we might actually disagree on is my opinion that if a Librarian’s political preferences 1) manifest themselves in the collection and 2) in a way that is contrary to the bent of the community as a whole (not an individual or two), then it is the right of those overseeing the library to find someone better suited.
Are you saying the librarian should keep quiet about his or her political beliefs – especially if those beliefs are different from those of the mayor or the community in general? Can’t a Socialist or a Communist ever be the librarian? After all, a library is a socialist concept.
Palin didn’t need to be psychic, Emmons had publicly endorsed incumbent mayor John Stein in the election. (See the recent Anchorage Daily News story.) Although I’m very troubled that Palin expressed an interest in censoring the library collection, Emmons’s refusal to cooperate doesn’t seem to have been the only factor in Palin’s decision to fire her. Palin herself said that she fired Emmons because she felt Emmons did not support her.
I am asking this seriously and not as a rhetorical question: how would it ever be established that such a situation had occurred?
I guess if some librarian went insane and replaced all the books with Chick Tracts it would be obvious enough, but I take it you’re imagining a biased but not completely deranged individual. Most of the library collection is going to consist of books with no obvious political bent, like novels and non-fiction works on neutral subjects like cooking and computer repair, so the librarian’s bias isn’t going to show clearly there. Even if we narrow the focus to just books about a particular political issue like abortion, how should the “bent of the community as a whole” be determined? Should the city conduct an annual opinion poll and compare the results to the books in the library?
How would a collection that correctly reflected community values look? If 75% of the community is opposed to abortion does that mean there should be no pro-choice library books at all, or merely that the number of books advocating legal abortion should not exceed 25% of titles on the subject? Would it still be properly reflective of the community if there were three anti-abortion books that were small, old, and had ugly covers and one big beautiful new book about the pro-choice movement? Should the collection at each library branch be considered separately, or should the entire library system be evaluated as a whole?
This is just scratching the surface. I do not see any practical way for a librarian to ensure that the collection mirrors the mainstream views of the community, and I do not see this as a desirable goal in the first place. If the librarian strives to present a variety of viewpoints then the dominant views of the community will be represented along with minority opinions.
Something I would agree is a potential firing offense is habitual violation of the established library collection policy. Any public library should have a formal policy covering how collection decisions are to be made. These leave plenty of room for the librarians to exercise their judgment, but not enough to go totally wild. The first example I found on Google was that for the Minneapolis Public Library system. Note that “Relevance to observed and anticipated community needs and desires” and “Representation of diverse points of view” are among the criteria for selection. If a librarian ignored this policy and only bought books about her own interests or only books that reflected a single point of view then she would be in violation of the policy and should be held accountable for that.
magellan started this discussion by talking about community values and books that reflected those values along with content tailored to the community. Basically, no swearing in books for a conservative community and ethnic books for a community with a large ethnic population.
He has since shifted over the political beliefs and I’m not clear on what he’s driving towards at all.
[quote=“Lamia, post:333, topic:461900”]
This is just scratching the surface. I do not see any practical way for a librarian to ensure that the collection mirrors the mainstream views of the community, and I do not see this as a desirable goal in the first place. If the librarian strives to present a variety of viewpoints then the dominant views of the community will be represented along with minority opinions.
[quote=“Lamia, post:333, topic:461900”]
Agreed. I’ve tried to explain that what he’s asking for is impossible (and is unlikely to ever be noticed by the community), but he keeps throwing up more and more deranged hypotheticals.
magellan, tell us exactly, what are you getting at?
Only if the librarians political preferences were expressed by excluding books that she disagreed with. It would be improper to replace a librarian because her decisions regarding the collection were too inclusive.
Wow. So much sound and fury over so little. People on both sides (well, on all six sides, since there are at least three different threads going on inside here) standing with fingers in ears and shouting as loudly as possible to overcome the other side. Ack.:smack:
As Justin Bailey and I agreed some time ago (see posts around #177 or so; I’m to lazy to open up a new window to go back and look), the City Librarian was an appointed position who served at the pleasure of the mayor. Why is anyone still arguing about this?
The Mayor made inquiries about the possibility of banning books. We have three sources for this information: Kilkenny (reliability uncertain), Emmons (one party to the converstaions) *and Gov. Palin herself *(the other party). It’s not a shock that we have this information, since at least one of the requests about banning came at a public meeting of the City Council.
No specific request to ban a specific book was made.
In the midst of the questioning about book banning procedures and what the City Librarian would do if a request to ban a book were made, we have a letter sent out to multiple department heads by Mayor Palin, asking for their resignations (or something to that effect). At least one of the conversations about book banning (the council meeting) occurred after this letter issued (by four days, IIRC). It isn’t clear whether this letter was sent only to her opponents, or to all department heads (it is certainly possible that these two sets are the same).
Some people in the town of Wasilla were upset to think that the City Librarian would be “fired.”
Mayor Palin did not end up asking for the termination of Ms. Emmons from her position (which was indeed “political” in the sole important sense of “serves at the pleasure of the mayor”). Mayor Palin said this was because Ms. Emmons and she came to an agreement about issues under the purview of Ms. Emmons.
Interestingly, when Mayor Palin was re-elected in 1999, Ms. Emmons DID resign her position, and moved on to other things.
Now, to get this thread back on track:
A) What does the fact that the then Mayor wanted to know about what the head of the city’s library dept. would do in response to a request from the mayor for the banning of a book say about Gov. Palin’s fitness to be Vice-President?
B) What does the fact that the then Mayor of the town of Wasilla asked for the pro-forma resignations of the town’s department heads who had opposed her election “as a test of loyalty” say about her fitness to be Vice-President?
C) I guess if you want you can keep discussing the hypothetical issue of whether or not a librarian should be keeping a collection that reflects the tastes of the local community, and, if he/she isn’t, should be terminated if you like, but shouldn’t that really go into a separate thread??
This way of phrasing things seems overly generous to Palin. Palin may prefer people to believe she was only posing the book banning situation to Emmons as purely hypothetical, along the lines of “What would you do if the library were on fire?” or “How would you deal with a patron who never returned their library books?”, but if that were the case she only needed to ask once.
Palin kept asking even though Emmons kept saying that she would refuse to censor books at the library. What sort of answer was Palin hoping to get out of her?
Given Mayor Palin’s other behavior upon taking office:
*I suppose it’s possible that she didn’t really care about banning books at all. Maybe she’s a “When I say ‘jump’, you say ‘how high?’” type who wanted Emmons to demonstrate her loyalty by agreeing to do whatever Palin said. But as little as I think of book banning, I’d think better of Palin if she really had been genuinely concerned that inappropriate materials were in the library than if she thought that being elected mayor gave her the right to order other city employees to act in violation of the ethical standards of their professions.
So it seems our potential next VP is either a censor or a dictator. Either way she appears to be someone who is inclined to abuse her power. Not the sort of person I want a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Now, all this did happen at the beginning of Palin’s political career. Maybe it was just an unfortunate rookie mistake. If so, a little mea culpa now would be nice, but so far Palin seems to be ignoring the story.
Important to note Palin herself has never denied asking the question about banning. She has rather said that her question was “rhetorical” and thus much ado about nothing. As such whether she asked the question (more than once) I do not think is in doubt at all. Merely your interpretation of what she was really after when asking it.
I think she did. Palin sent “the letter” to the department heads asking for their resignations. I think it is splitting hairs to say this “test of loyalty” was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to have people remove themselves from office. Further, the stories read that Palin re-instated Emmons after the townspeople made a fuss. Sounds like she was at least temporarily fired to me (but maybe I am reading it wrong although again it is splitting hairs to distinguish here that Palin was seeking to fire Emmons and actually fired Emmons…sans a groundswell of support from the town Emmons would have been fired).
Emmons resigned before the re-election by a few days. Maybe she saw the writing on the wall…I dunno. Just being clear Palin’s re-election was not a done deal when Emmons resigned.
It is HUGE to me! I do not buy Palin’s claim of it being a rhetorical (read hypothetical) question. She asked twice and I think three times about it. Who asks the same hypothetical THREE times on something like this? Palin knew (as cited earlier in the thread) that a process for challenging books existed. Palin was asking in the guise of Emmon’s boss and at some point had a threat of termination hanging out there.
Censorship, as noted earlier, is deeply offensive to most Americans in all but unique circumstances. I certainly do not want a VPOTUS who in even the slightest way thinks such a thing is ok and actively sought to use their power to ban books. This is an insight to a person willing to grossly abuse their power to unhinge a bedrock piece of America. A bedrock piece that is not even in dispute by anyone and all would say they value.
The VPOTUS has to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and this clearly shows she is fine with shredding the Constitution if it suits her. Personally I think this should automatically disqualify her from any office.
This is separate from the banning issue. That said to me it indicates a power hungry and grasping personality. It indicates a willingness to abuse the powers of her office for her own ends. This is not like dumping a previous administration’s Cabinet and putting your own guys in (which is usual). We have had near 8 years of Bush cronyism and have seen what that got us. No thanks to more of the same.