The excuse that it was a general housecleaning unrelated to the librarian’s refusal to accede to her request to violate professional ethics is untenable. If that were the case – if the librarian were going to be fired anyway as part of a general spoils-system turnover of offices – there would clearly be no occasion to make such a request (since the new Palin policy would be implemented by the new Palin appointee, not by the previous incumbent).
Game. Set. Match.
It sounds like you believe that it should be ok for books to be restricted from libraries based on the views of individuals and groups personal preferences. In addition, it sounds like you are ok with the elected official with hire/fire authority over the librarian to impose his/her personal views on which books are the best selection for the community at large.
Do you think this is a workable system? On what basis would books be chosen and by which people/groups?
I do not follow why I cannot fire just you and have to fire the whole litigation department (unless the whole litigation department is you).
And conclude you gave the wrong answer? Well, I just asked a rhetorical question. My stated reason for firing you is I cannot trust you. Draw your own conclusions. I’d certainly feel it was due to the “wrong” answer though.
There seems to be rules and procedures in place for petitioning your library. Presumably this extends to including books as well as excluding them. I am still fuzzy on who makes the ultimate decision (may well vary state-to-state) but in the end there is a means to do this.
If at the end of that process the librarian refused to add/remove a book they were duly instructed to do so then fire away. The librarian is in derelition of their duties. If the librarian thinks it is some huge deal they can even make a fuss to the media or special interest groups…maybe even file a lawsuit for all I know.
That is far different than a suggestion a single person may come to the librarian and mandate what should or should not be included in the collection.
So, if I ask an undercover cop if she’ll blow me for $50, I can use the “It was only a rhetorical question.” defense at my trial? 
Well, I suppose one could say that, “The library should stock as wide and diverse a collection of writings as feasible, without favoring one political or social viewpoint over another,” is an ideology. Looked at that way, I suppose you could say that every book in the library is there for an ideological reason, but the ideology is largely neutral on the actual content of the books: they’re not stocking the Communist Manifesto because they’re communists, they’re stocking it because they feel that the free exchange of ideas has a value above and apart from the intrinsic value of the ideas being exchanged. The book is there for an ideological reason, but not because of the ideology of communism.
As a contrast, compare with the ideology of, “We should only have books in the library that reflect the tastes of the controlling political body, and any work they deem unacceptable should be excised.” In this case, the library is being used as a tool of specific social or political viewpoints. Rather than being a neutral source of information, the library has been politicized, and the quality of the information it contains rendered suspect, because one cannot tell the extent to which available information has been manipulated to promote the ruling party’s beliefs.
Now, obviously, the above is a worst case scenario, and in practical terms, pulling a fiction novel off the shelf because it uses the word “motherfucker” (as appears to be the case in Palin’s abortive censorship effort) is a far cry from Soviet-style central of information. But, personally, freedom of speech is one of the few areas where it’s actually desirable to come as close to absolutism as possible: barring obvious and immediate harm, the ability to speak and the ability to access the speech of others should not be infringed in any way. Since no one’s ever been able to demonstrate the harm inherent in obscenity, I don’t think it’s acceptable to censor it.
It seems that it WAS specific books. Otherwise she would have said, “She didn’t name any specific books,” and not “I don’t know which books.”
You can just fire me. but IF you fire the whole department, it’s hard for me to claim you did it because I gave you the “wrong” answer.
You’re fuzzy on the whole process, but perfectly willing to hang Palin for violating it.
Whatever it was.
In a small town a single person most probably makes the decisions on what the library orders. Suppose the librarian simply refused to order any copies of “When Grown-Ups Fall in Love,” and claimed she felt there was a lack of community interest? Do you applaud the mayor for taking action to overrule her, or do you meekly accept her decision?
Well…I am unsure just how close Ms. Kilkenny was to all this. It is a small town (so no secrets right? ;-)) and she states in her letter on the web (here) that she is “hated” by Palin as one of the people who fought against her to reinstate the librarian.
Also could just be loose language.
Note for this post I am neither defending or deriding anything…just pointing out some detail as far as I know it.
You are completely missing the point. A librarian is not a political position (whether they are appointed or not). Firing a librarian on a whim (and her rehiring after the public outcry shows it was a whim) is inappropriate for a political figure.
I don’t know how many times I have to say the inappropriateness of it has nothing to do with whether or not Palin wanted to ban books.
A request to a librarian is NEVER a guarantee that an item will be purchased. And no entity in the process is allowed to force a librarian to purchase an item they don’t want.
Violating it because suggesting she (Palin) be the arbiter of what is or is not included in the library clearly is NOT the appropriate process.
So yeah, I am perfectly willing to hang Palin for it because she clearly did not use (whatever) process exists. She wanted to be the sole arbiter of what the library includes and that is wrong on many levels.
(Unless the process is the mayor chooses the library’s book collection solo but I will eat my hat if that is the rules there)
Since there was no such request, you’re incorrect. There was a general rhetorical inquiry., from what we have seen.
This has nothing to do with the OP, there is nothing to indicate there was any attempt for any book to be restricted for “based on the views of individuals and groups personal preferences”. Nor is there any evidence that the firing had anything to do with “authority over the librarian to impose his/her personal views on which books are the best selection for the community at large.” unless for soem reason you think that the Police Chief and others were also given their notice based upon book selection.
The fact it was a mass letter means absolutely nothing.
Isn’t it conceivable that there were different reasons for why Palin considered all the letter recipients political opponents? Maybe the Chief of Police didn’t let her go on a speeding ticket one time. Maybe someone else she fired was a parent she clashed with at PTA meetings with whom she knew she couldn’t work.
Again, this assumes facts not in evidence, there is nothing whatsoever in what tiny amount we do know that even suggests this. A question was asked about a procedure. Palin sez it was rhetorical. Her Political opponent sez it could have been *leading *to a request to ban books. No one has any minutes or exact quotes or even context. No one knows anything, really.
Alright DrDeth, make a leap, why do you think Palin fired the librarian?
And remember, she was reinstated shortly after her firing. So it has to be a reason that wasn’t worthy of dismissal to begin with.
Certainly it’s conceivable. But there is no reason to assume it has anything to do with the rhetorical question. Maybe it did, of course, Palin may have had a personal as well as a politcal reason for each name she had on the list. Or not. We know very little about this, just about everything has been assumed.
I don’t see how it matters whether she fired the chief of police or not, though I can at least see a relationship between a mayor and law enforcement, noting a mayor’s involvement with legislation and law enforcement’s, well, enforcement of legislation. The tie between a mayor’s office and a librarian is a bit less obvious to me. Of course, if you’re saying it is ok to fire a librarian when you are on an arbitrary firing spree, then I guess we should switch to some other thread about what sort of executive ability is implied by arbitrary firing, but I think most of us are willing to be a bit more charitable and assume that the decision wasn’t arbitrary, was related to what she said (about supporting her), and therefore that she considered each case on its own merits. Thus, the questions: why the librarian? Why ask about book banning if not to use that as a criterion for determining support?
What quote we do have (from the Time article linked in post #97) suggests the librarian was “aghast” at Palin’s request. If it was merely a question of, “How do I go about having books removed or added to the library” then the librarian should have pointed Palin to the appropriate starting point for such a thing.
What we really need is the former librarian who is oddly incommunicado. I bet she is being hotly pursued by numerous reporters.
She was never actually fired, it seems. But a letter of intent to fire was given to every one of her staff who politically opposed her. Even those “fired” seem to agree with that, that the “fired list” were Palin’s political opponents. Note that the same thing happens when a new President (technically they all are forced to submit their resignation letters, but it comes down to the same thing)comes in, as well as many other executive offices.
And, if the librarian was beloved by the voters and they got all het up about her “firing” then it makes sense that a Politician would back off. No smart politico wants to piss off the voters.
Bricker seemed to be taking that position (based on previous posts that he didn’t want NAMBLA books in library), so I asked the question I did.
I really wasn’t asking the question based on what may or may not have happened, just extending that if we allow individuals to impose their preference for restricting books on the library and an elected official like a mayor can hire/fire, then we could easily see abuse of that power.