A lot of members, myself included, are upset about the included language for a couple of reasons. So far OIF, IFC, and the major players involved don't seem interested in addressing these particular concerns.
1. The timeline of all of this seems very suspicious. For the first week or so of the debate, no one seemed to have any idea when the specific hate group language had been added. Instead of simply telling concerned members the answer, James LaRue and others involved simply ignored the question. It was discovered yesterday that the language was voted on by IFC on Monday afternoon and voted on Tuesday morning. No one from OIF or IFC mentioned Tuesday before the vote that the language had been changed. Many councilors after the fact were surprised to realize what they had voted for. If IFC and OIF truly believe this is the best course of action, why weren't they more upfront about adding the language in?
2. I am hearing from members with legal experience that by explicitly stating that we must allow these groups, libraries are actually more legally vulnerable to lawsuits since there is an explicitly stated guideline that white supremacist groups can use in court to make their case. If adding the language doesn't actually change the guideline, as OIF/IFC seems to be saying, then why leave it in there when it makes so many members uncomfortable?
3. Just because something is the law doesn't make it ethical or right. A lot of things were legal in the past that are no longer so because people fought against them. OIF/IFC claims that adding this language doesn't invite white supremacists or other hate groups into libraries, it simply says they are allowed to be there. But by that inclusion, our policy is telling other portions of our populations (LGBT patrons, patrons of color, Jewish patrons, etc.) that they are not welcome. That may not be the implication OIF/IFC was going for, but it sure is what they ended up with.
4. There have been a number of councilors on the listserv claiming that saying we don't want hate groups will make it easier for libraries to also prevent groups like BLM and other social justice groups from using the libraries. This is ridiculous. The fact that library staff who are supposed to be experts in information literacy are drawing false equivalencies between social justice groups campaigning for things like "make police stop killing poc" and hate groups campaigning for "kill all the poc" is, frankly, idiotic. It is not the same thing at all and the only thing that argument does is show the immense privilege that those councilors have. Apparently it's fine to welcome hate groups since those specific people won't actually be injured by it. Miss me with that garbage.
I do not think including that language was the right thing to do. I think it was done in a very shady and underhanded way and I think that parroting the "Free speech is all" bs is dangerous. In this current political climate hate speech does not exist in a vacuum. It results in violence. Allowing those groups into libraries is inviting violence against our most vulnerable populations and staff members. No wonder library staff of color leave the profession in droves when our professional organization and many of it's highest members tell them they need to extend the hand of friendship to people who want them dead. Remove the language and instead provide libraries with resources for what to do if they are sued by a group for refusing them access. If having the language there doesn't change the policy then leaving it out also doesn't change the policy. Why be explicit in something that only has the potential to harm?
It was a shameful addition and much of council's refusal to listen to concerns shows how incredibly elitist and out of touch they are with much of the rest of libraryworld. If they're going to keep this language then they need to stop hawking their supposed desire to increase diversity within the profession. You cannot have it both ways.
Natalie
------------------------------
Natalie DeJonghe
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Jul 17, 2018 06:36 PM
From: Gina Kromhout
Subject: Current Council discussion on the Resolution on Meeting Rooms
Hi Folks,
Council is currently having a discussion about the resolution passed at Annual regarding interpretations for acceptable meeting room use. This is about having the language referring to hate groups as specifically included in those that we must accommodate. As your councilor I want to hear your thoughts on this issue and to know how I voted. From what I understand this isn't actually anything we can control -- if we were to rescind this resolution we would still have to allow white supremacist groups to use meeting rooms because they have a legal right. The IFC recommended this language be placed to remind public libraries that we can't keep them out by saying they can't have a room. I voted in favor of the resolution. What say we on this?
------------------------------
Gina Kromhout, Ohio CPL, MLIS
Teen Services Librarian
Avon Lake Public Library
32649 Electric Blvd.
Avon Lake, OH 44012
440-933-8128
gkromhout@avonlake.lib.oh.us
2018 Emerging Leader
GAMERT Councilor
------------------------------