What was the thought behind deleting:
"Librarians may seek to increase user awareness of materials and resources on various social concerns by many means, including, but not limited to, issuing lists of resources, arranging exhibits, and presenting programs."?
And while I don't believe it needs to addressed in this interpretation itself, are libraries truly obligated to collect on "all sides" of an issue in all cases? Must we collect resource that deny the Holocaust or present Young Earth Creationism as solid science despite the massive documentation that refutes both of these assertions?
Alaska Chapter Councilor
Member, Depository Library Council
Sorry for leaving this for so long. I do have a couple of comments/concerns.
First, in the 3rd paragraph, if you are going to use the "laundry list" of issues it needs to be larger. For example, sexual issues do not usually include gender issues. Would it not be stronger to say, "This includes materials and resources that reflect a diversity of issues, whatever they are."?
Second, note that "materials and resources" has been changed to "content" through most of this interpretation. It probably needs to be consistent throughout.
Third, in the final paragraph, I would take the sentence "Diversity is meaningless without tolerance" out completely. I do not see where it adds anything of substance to the paragraph.
New Mexico State University
John C. Sandstrom
I agree with John and think that the word or concept of "tolerance" is a loaded word these days because it's half of a coin with "intolerance" on the other side. One's tolerance is another's intolerance. It has been several other librarians who have convinced me of the need to avoid this word. I agree we should strike the sentence "Diversity is meaningless without tolerance." And the laundry list of diversity issues will never be fully satisfactory so I agree it should be more generic.
Mike Marlin California State Library Braille and Talking Book Library Sacramento, CA