Making Public
Libraries Safer
Victims
Describe Their
Experiences
by Dan Kleinman
of SafeLibraries
9
Sept
2011
featuring
Lori
Bradley
and
Aldo
DeVivo
Are Public
Libraries Unsafe?
libraries are safe. Is that true?
appropriate selections for children?
These questions and more will be answered tonight.
Who Are Your Guides This Evening?
Courtesy of our sponsor and host this evening, namely the West Jersey Tea Party and Braddock's Tavern, respectively, three people will speak to inform you about the issues involved:
So let's all gave a hand to the West Jersey Tea Party and Braddock's Tavern for allowing us to guide you this evening.
What's the Agenda?
What is a Safer Library?
A safer library is one that has become safer as direct result of citizens learning who or what is controlling their libraries, finding out if the library is being run as they expect or as some outside organization demands, than working together with the proper authorities to restore local control.
Example? Okay. A public library had unlimited
pornography on the Internet computers. Why?
Because the American Library Association says
anything goes, including porn. It's your First
Amendment right to porn. Is it? Not in libraries,
according to the US Supreme Court nor library director Dean Marney. He exposed the ALA "dogma," and now the library
filters out porn and reviews requests to unblock the filter. That library is now safer, thanks to identifying and restoring control.
How Can You Make a Library Safer?
Good question! Step one is becoming aware there's even a problem in the first place. That's why you are all here! You have taken the first step!
Step two is to realize that there is an outside organization that may weigh in very heavily on your local libraries, but not always. And it doesn't have to be that way. That's the American Library Association, the ALA.
And it bends over backwards to tell everyone who will listen that it has absolutely no control over public libraries. It may not have direct control, but it has indirect control that is often written right into the policies of thousands of libraries.
The American Library Association
Hi Dan - I don't know you personally, but I've been following Safe Libraries for a while. I really appreciate your efforts to support libraries and librarians who want to be a safe place for all their patrons. I wish it were "safer" for librarians to support you!
Are Librarians Afraid of the ALA?
Why is there such a disconnect between our profession and everyone else on this particular issue? More specifically, how could we have allowed ourselves to be put in such a publicly disadvantageous position as defending the right of children to access pornography? The answer is simple and ironic. Our profession preaches intellectual freedom but does not tolerate its practice within our own ranks. Librarians imbued with common sense and good political judgment are afraid to espouse even a moderate position that advocates the limited use of filters. There is a great fear within librarianship of being branded a censor. No librarian wants to be wounded by that bullet. That's why we can never really initiate an open and honest dialogue among ourselves on issues involving even the most obvious need for limitations of intellectual freedom. As a result, the extremists always dominate, and we end up with an "anything goes" official policy that distances the library profession from mainstream America.
"Intellectual Freedom Begins at Home," by Will Manley, Booklist, 1 October 2003:
The ALA and School Librarians
Likewise, when [the ALA] fail[s] to see school librarians as acting "in loco parentis", rightly concerned about the quality and content of school library collections, they are carrying things too far. ....
....
It is easy to see the liberal slant in many librarian organizations and the award lists they compile. I would never put some of their selections in this school library. We have a duty to parents, who are trusting us with the education of their children. Let's keep the controversy and politics out of it.
....
So, I appreciate some things about ALA from a professional standpoint, but their political activism does not thrill me.
"Banned Books B.S.," by Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online, 30 August 2011, comment by private school library media specialist Chris B:
How is the ALA Viewed by Librarians?
protecting free speech, then so be it."
Porn and the "Information" Ploy
The argument against Internet filters may have some
technological weight, but it has no moral weight at all,
which is why the ALA has done such a bad job of persuading Congress of the American right to salivate over Internet porn at the taxpayer's expense. An Internet filter for porn is just a technological version of the filter that librarians use when they don't subscribe to hard core porn magazines for their public library. It's called selection, and it requires judgment about what "information" is appropriate for a library. The ALA evades any debates about selection and judgment by classifying everything as "information" and then saying everyone should have access to all of it. That's a very convenient ploy for people incapable of reasoning, moral or otherwise. Nevertheless, there is no good argument for providing free access to porn. Libraries exist to serve the public good, and what argument can be made that free access to porn is a public good?
"Library Porn Challenge," by Annoyed Librarian, Annoyed Librarian, 5 March 2007:
How Does the ALA Affect Schools?
Living Exhibit A: Aldo Devivo
"Crusade On To Ban Controversial ‘Wallflower’ At Rockland School; Coming-Of-Age Novel Upsets Parents At Clarkstown North," by Magee Hickey, CBS2 News, 9 February 2011.
Ignore "National Group" Threat Letters
"National groups" will attempt to coerce schools to act as they demand, all the while protesting "parents" who supposedly seek to control their own school.
Should you care? No, and I'll show you why.
"National Groups" Bring Empty Threats
Claim:
"We are troubled by your recent decision to ban...."
Reality:
It starts off false. It starts off guilty until proven innocent. As an ALA leader illustrated, it is perfectly okay to remove books from schools that do not meet the school's selection policy. That is not a "ban." When these "national groups" talk about "bans" and "censorship," they are attempting to redefine the language to win the battle before it even starts. Don't fall for that misdirection. If the national groups had a legitimate argument, they would not have to twist the language to browbeat people into submission. And this is the very first sentence of the letter. So they lead off with their strongest point, and it is an attempt to redefine language to win the argument before it even starts. It is dishonesty pure and simple and telegraphs a losing case.
Let's explore the 18 Aug 2011 demand letter to Dr. Vern Minor, Superintendent of the Republic R-III School District in Republic, MO. All the fancy logos and signatures just shown are from this one letter.
More "National Group" Misdirection
Claim:
"In our view, the Board’s decision to remove these books is educationally unsound and constitutionally suspect."
Reality:
This from an organization, the National Coalition Against Censorship, promoting porn right on its own web site. See: "NCAC Promotes Porn; Says Keeping Inappropriate Material From Children is Censorship; It Has Lost All Credibility" and graphic below.
Recall that even a prominent progressive librarian said every book challenge, no matter how legitimate, brings out the false cries of censorship:
"School districts have policies in place for reviewing challenges to books on the basis of age-appropriateness. Challenged books are reviewed and evaluated by committees that are charged with that responsibility, and then the school district makes an official decision regarding the book. Regardless of what the school's decision turns out to be, regardless of its reasonableness or unreasonableness, and regardless of the objectivity or bias within the decision-making process in a specific case, all challenges to a book by a parent get counted as an attempt at book banning."
More "National Group" Misdirection
Claim:
"VOYA calls it an 'intelligent, heartfelt novel' and School Library Journal describes it as 'a thoughtful, multilayered story about friendship, loss, and moving on.'"
Reality:
That is deeply and deceptively misleading. Why? Take a look at what another school superintendent found out about book reviews by such organizations, and this is something the NCAC will not disclose: "School Excoriates Book Reviews that Fail to Disclose 'Graphic Sexual Details' in Books for Children; Lush by Natasha Friend is 'Wildly Inappropriate' for Certain Children." So the possibly questionable nature of the reviews is not revealed by the NCAC.
More insidious, you are expected to take the word of some third party, while at the same time, in another double standard, you are told not to accept the movie ratings of the MPAA since they are by a third party. Get this? You are supposed to be guided by book rating groups that leave out sexually relevant information, including ALA's own Booklist, while at the same time you are NOT supposed to be guided by the MPAA that DOES consider sexual content.
More "National Group" Misdirection
Claim:
"Clearly, these books would not have been subjected to review if the complaint
had not been filed,
and Scroggins’
religious objections
thus tainted the entire
review process."
Reality:
Clearly, any sentence starting with the word "clearly" is not clear at all. The review was not "tainted" because of the wording used to bring the complaint. People are entitled to bring a complaint for any reason with any wording--that's our democracy at work. Once it comes under review in accordance with the existing policy, the manner in which that complaint is brought is completely irrelevant. If it were any other way, that would represent a restraint on the freedom people have to seek redress from their government. Wes Scroggins needs no NCAC straightjacket to ensure he does not mention religion or else "taint" the process. NCAC and the other national groups are supposed to be about freedom of speech, not about restraining speech. Apparently the ends justifies the means.
More "National Group" Misdirection
Claim:
"Instead, the board seems to have uncritically accepted the Superintendent’s view that they are not 'appropriate,' because of certain content and because the books send 'the wrong message.'"
Reality:
"Seems"? That's the NCAC argument? That's the only evidence? Is the NCAC reading minds now? Has the NCAC made itself judge of the thoughts of the board members? "Because of certain content"? Is that a problem? Isn't the book's content being considered under the school's book selection policy?
More "National Group" Misdirection
Claim:
"This kind of viewpoint and content-based discrimination violates the most basic principle of the First Amendment...."
Reality:
Holy conclusory statement, Batman! That is a conclusory statement based on zero evidence of any viewpoint discrimination or content-based discrimination. Zero. What exactly is the "viewpoint" or the "content" that violates the First Amendment is not mentioned in the letter. Except maybe for what "seems" to be in the minds of board members. We know from the Pico case that pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable material may be removed from schools forthwith, right? The board's decisions were based on proper Pico considerations, right? Has the NCAC and all those high powered signatories produced a shred of evidence the books were removed for other reasons, other than the religious statements of the original complainant that are irrelevant to the matter? No. They have not. This letter is pure posturing. Pure bravado. Pure bluffing. They are holding the lowest hand possible.
More "National Group" Misdirection
Claim:
"It is irrelevant that the board’s decision was based on 'standards' modeled on the rating systems created for movies, music, TV, and video games. [And so on.]"
Reality:
Well will you look at that. Right there in this very letter we are supposed to be guided by book ratings organizations but not by other rating organizations. You have to ask yourself if all those high powered signatories wrote this letter or some summer intern using substandard material, just like the "censorship map" that the ALA plagiarized. And that "Judith Platt" who signed the letter for the AAP? That's right, she's an ALA leader, being on the Board of Trustees of the ALA's "Freedom to Read Foundation." The ALA will say the FTRF is separate. It's a useful claim. Has Judith Platt who signed this letter ever done anything to stop the ALA's plagiarism? No. And she's in a position to have done something about it. While I'm at it, Joan Bertin supports censorship of parents seeking to protect children from inappropriate material, though she calls it something else: "NCAC Supports Censorship with Double Standards and Made Up Facts." And these are the people telling you you are wrong.
More "National Group" Misdirection
Claim:
"If students were precluded from reading literature considered inappropriate because of sexual or violent content, they would be deprived of exposure to vast amounts of important material, including Shakespeare, major religious texts including the Bible, the works of Tolstoy, Flaubert, Joyce, Faulkner, D.H. Lawrence, Nabokov, Morrison, and countless others."
Reality:
This is the slippery slope argument. Essentially they are saying if you remove one you have to remove them all. That is false, of course. And the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. See: "Slippery Slopes Okay for Gays, But Not Kids, Not National Security, According to the American Library Association."
More "National Group" Misdirection
Claim:
"We urge you to provide students with an education that exposes them to challenging materials and diverse ideas and beliefs, that prepares them to make their own judgments, and that teaches them to respect the opinions of others."
Reality:
This implies you are not. Not unless you violate your own reasonable policy that comports with the law, community standards, and common sense. Now what kind of respect for the opinions of others will you teach the children if you violate your own sound policy based on a legally and factually vacant letter from national groups known to promote inappropriate material for children?
More "National Group" Misdirection
Claim:
"We hope you will reconsider the decision to remove Slaughterhouse Five and Twenty Boy Summer, as well as the approach to decisions about selection and retention of books and other materials."
Reality:
Actually, the Republic school district's policy just might be a model for other schools nationwide, and that's why all those organizations are gunning for them, even with empty bullets (pictured below left), but they're not supposed to know the bullets are empty. Instead, they want this school to voluntarily throw away a year of work to "reconsider ... the approach to decisions about selection and retention of books and other materials."
That's what the national groups fear.
A policy so well written and effective that it should become a national model. It matches selection policy to other school standards. That is why they are demanding not only the return of the books, but also a rewriting of that policy. I do not think I've seen that before. That policy is a threat to them. Therefore, contact Superintendent Vern Minor for more information. Phone: (417) 732-3605.
Game-Changing Deception
The Dog Not Barking
What is the key evidence that national groups mislead local communities? Is it anything they said? No. It's the dog not barking. It's what they always leave out. It's not even on the ala.org web site, except once where I added it.
It's a statement by none other than that very ACLU leader who created the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom and created Banned Books Week.
If communities know this statement, they would no longer question whether removing inappropriate material was okay.
They would no longer be fooled by the national groups! It's....
Get It Out of There!
"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there."
"Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week," by Judith Krug, Curriculum Review, 46:1, Sep. 2006.
Legal Cases On Public School Books
Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), is a US Supreme Court case where the Court determined books may not be removed from schools for the ideas they contain. However, if they are pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable, they may be removed immediately. Notably, this policy was created and promoted by the American Library Association itself. Among other cases, Pico was applied in 2010 in a school that removed a book that contained, among other things, a depiction of two people engaging in anal intercourse while two Boy Scouts looked on inquisitively.
Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education, 624 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2010), is a case that determined "Teachers have no First Amendment free-speech protection for curricular decisions they make in the classroom." In other words, schools get to determine curricula, not teachers, and materials may be proscribed accordingly.
ACLU of Florida v. Miami Dade County School Board, 557 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2009), is a case that went before the US Supreme Court that denied certiorari. It ruled schools have the "right to apply accuracy" and to remove inaccurate material, in this case about Cuba. "If inaccuracy was in fact the motivating concern behind the Board's action, the Board properly exercised its 'substantial legitimate role in the determination of school library content,' Pico, 457 U.S. at 869...."
Virgil v. School Board of Columbia County, 862 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1989), is a case allowing the removal of books due to "vulgarity and sexual explicitness."
No case has supported the removal of material where the sole concern was ideas such as witchcraft, homosexuality, the Earth being older than 6000 years, Marxism and the like. For example, if the concern was to remove material solely for its homosexual content, the chances for success are nil. However, if the content contains material of concern to the courts, simply address that as the issue and drop extraneous issues that will only be used for ridicule. In other words, stick to the law, not religious or political beliefs.
The Difference the Whole Truth Makes
And this is from Judith Krug who said, "Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'"
"What Lurks in the Library? The American Library Association Believes Children Should Have Access to All Material, No Matter How Violent or Obscene," by Scott DeNicola, Citizen 9:9, 18 September 1995.
Now doesn't knowing that the creator of Banned Books Week approves removing material from public schools cast a whole different look on public school book challenges and false claims of censorship? Doesn't that cast a whole new light on the misleading letters of the national groups with fancy logos and big signatures who wield legal cases like swords but who do not ever disclose that simple statement? That common sense?
Living Exhibit B: Lori Bradley
Let's bring out Living
Exhibit B, Lori Bradley,
but first, watch News 12
NJ's Matt Murphy:
How to Limit ALA Influence
The Conservative Excuse
Almost invariably, the "free speech" advocates attack efforts to protect children as being made by conservatives, as if conservatives are not entitled to be concerned about children.
Famous liberal Naomi Wolf exposed sexually
inappropriate content of children's books:
Noted progressive librarian Rory Litwin said
Banned Books Week is propaganda:
And liberal Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon demanded
public library Internet filters, etc., etc., etc.
"Young Adult Fiction: Wild Things," by Naomi Wolf, The New York Times, 12 March 2006.
"My Problem with Banned Books Week," by Rory Litwin, Library Juice, 28 August 2011. (And see "Banned Books Week Propaganda Exposed by Progressive Librarian Rory Litwin; ALA Censors Out Criticism of Its Own Actions in a Manner Dishonest to the Core.")
Why Say All This? Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu said, "[I]f you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; ... if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
A battle is being waged by the ACLU-influenced ALA over your children. It's a small group within the ALA known as the "Office for Intellectual Freedom." It rules by fear and by propaganda.
We have now desensitized you to that propaganda while helping you to know yourself. We are standing up for the frightened librarians and patrons left by the wayside. We all have the law behind us. And community standards. And common sense. We didn't start this. But it's past time to fight back.
Know your enemy. Win. 謝謝, Sun Tzu.
Who made up all the rules;
We follow them like fools;
Believe them to be true;
Don't care to think them through
And it's ironic too;
Coz what we tend to do;
Is act on what they say;
And then it is that way.
Who are they; And where are they;
And how can they possibly know all this?
Do you see what I see; Why do we live like this;
Is it because it's true that ignorance is bliss?
And I'm sorry so sorry; I'm sorry it's like this;
I'm sorry so sorry; I'm sorry we do this.
Questions? Answers? RU Awake?
Your speakers:
Our sponsor:
Our host:
Thank you from all of us to the
West Jersey Tea Party and
Braddock's Tavern.
URL for this presentation: