IFRT Members Community (Open)

 View Only
last person joined: 12 hours ago 

The Intellectual Freedom Round Table (IFRT) provides a forum for the discussion of activities, programs, and problems in intellectual freedom of libraries and librarians.

The IFRT Members Community group is the central hub for discussion, library and events. It is visible to all ALA members but only IFRT members can participate in the conversation.

Disturbing development in Missouri

  • 1.  Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 18, 2022 10:52 AM
    Forwarding an email: 

    Attached you will find a proposed rule change and Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft's accompanying press release. It's a sad day in Missouri and one that I never thought I'd see as State Librarian. If you're a praying person, please keep my staff in your thoughts and prayers as this has been the most difficult 24 hours we've experienced, and it's only the beginning.

    Robin

     

    Robin Westphal, State Librarian



    ------------------------------
    Michael Blackwell
    Director
    St Mary's County Library
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 18, 2022 11:53 AM
    This is going to be contagious.

    ------------------------------
    Darryl Eschete
    Director
    West Des Moines Public Library
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 18, 2022 02:23 PM
    It's likely to spread, yes. :-(

    Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
    Get Outlook for Android





  • 4.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 08:37 AM

    What an incredibly vague statement. This kind of pandering to the extreme side of the political spectrum is just a tactic for votes; these hacks would feed children to zoo animals if it meant holding office.

     

    Jim Bass, MLS| Assistant Branch Manager

    Lafayette Public Library

    301 W. Congress | P.O. Box 3427 | Lafayette,  LA 70502

    phone: 337-886-6292   | fax: 337-261-5782   | email: jim.bass@lafayettepubliclibrary.org

     

    Kurt-Vonnegut-quote-about-libraries-from-A-Man-Without-a-Country-1c13190

     

     






  • 5.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 02:39 PM
    If the ALA plans to issue a statement to protest this,  I suggest drawing parallels to the book bans of the authoritarian regime in Iran and calling attention to the current Iranian youth uprising whose demands include an end to book bans.

    Frieda Afary





  • 6.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 18, 2022 12:44 PM
    Edited by Ayana Looney Oct 21, 2022 09:43 PM
    Is it too soon to file a complaint with the MO ACLU?
    https://www.aclu-mo.org/en/legal-help

    ~Ayana



  • 7.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 18, 2022 09:48 PM

    I am sorry to say that this is Virginia's fault. Virginia elected a Governor who campaigned on parents' rights (to censor) after his opponent made a foot-in-mouth statement that parents shouldn't be telling schools what to teach. As Governor, he has worked on keeping that promise.

    Last spring the Virginia General Assembly passed "Instructional material; sexually explicit content; parental notification" into law

    The Governor then charged the Department of Education with drafting a model policy for local school boards to adopt. The 30 day comment period ended on August 3rd. There was strong opposition, primarily because the definition in the Code of sexually explicit included the word homosexuality. That word has now disappeared from the definition.

    The Governor also took a previously passed law that was intended to protect transgender students  and charged the Department of Education with drafting a revised model policy that turns the plain meaning of the law upside down.

    His justification for all this is that he is protecting parents' rights. Numerous parents have pointed out that he is in fact trampling on their right to affirm their child's identity.

    Anyway, because the Governor was elected, apparently by virtue of this commitment to parental rights, he is now a model himself and has politicians all over the US imitating him. 



    ------------------------------
    Carolyn Caywood
    Librarian
    retired
    She/Her/Hers
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 18, 2022 10:12 PM
    Michael Blackwell

    I have two observations to share, the first is that "age appropriate" is the essence of their claim and it is a value judgement. The value judgment of what is appropriate to a given "age" is a value judgement that presumes , for instance, that all children of "5 years of age" are  the same. There is a good body of evidence to the contrary.

    Second, this is a cultural thing of sorts whereas the CRPD or the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities was REJECTED by the US Senate on the exact same premise: the right of parental choice. This is in contrast to the CRPD itself which grants rights to the child itself and you can find this in Article 7.

    https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convention_accessible_pdf.pdf

    While the exact CRPD language itself may refer to the matter of what is "age appropriate" without actual definitions, the contention is more about who decides what a child does; the child or the parent. There are practical instances where it is plain that a parent decides for a child and this is not the contest, the contest is about what happens at certain extremes commonly understood as disabilities: To what extent does a child participate in decisions related to their education? To what extent does a child decide what they will accept? How do we differentiate between the wants of the parents for the child and the wants of the child itself? This particular issues might take a different tangent than the one you have here but it informs the same problem.

    The "Quad" that I use are found below and they all inform human, not age-based, rights. This Quad should be supplemented with another four sources that debunk the age-based mythology. It is not that there are not generalities but rather that there is no fixed basis by age. Ultimately we are looking for human rights and how we acquire the right to seek, to understand, and to choose. Bias is not some mythological beast but the result of the same upbringing and the "right" to indoctrinate said belief of upbringing.

    1. United Nations - Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development c.2014
    2. American Library Association - Library Bill of Rights c.1986
    3. United Nations - CRPD The Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities c.13 December 2006
    4. United Nations - Universal Declaration of Human Rights c.10 December 1948


    ------------------------------
    Alec McFarlane
    President
    New Image Associates - Construction Consultants
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 09:14 AM
    "I have two observations to share, the first is that "age appropriate" is the essence of their claim and it is a value judgement. The value judgment of what is appropriate to a given "age" is a value judgement that presumes , for instance, that all children of "5 years of age" are  the same. There is a good body of evidence to the contrary."

    But the people who wrote this down in MO were smart enough to reference existing statute. Missouri already has language in their law that says adults can't give kids anything that..."... depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, the condition of human genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, or sadomasochistic abuse in a way which is patently offensive to the average person applying contemporary adult community standards with respect to what is suitable for minors."

    Most states have language similar somewhere in their state codes. I looked, and Iowa actually has similar language, BUT ALSO a specific exemption for public libraries. I don't see such an exemption anywhere in Missouri's state code, though I haven't had time to obsessively dig.

    So this "rule" is really just a pretty obvious bit of politically theatrical exemplification. Any pushback tees somebody up to ask: "Well, if state law won't let a pervert on the street give a kid a book about {insert sexual moral panic du jour}, why do we allow librarians to do it? And why do librarians want to?"



    ------------------------------
    Darryl Eschete
    Director
    West Des Moines Public Library
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 10:13 AM
    Hi all,

    I agree that this is political theater, as the timing before the midterm election suggests. It is of course still disturbing as an example of the effort organizing and mobilizing against intellectual freedom and thus against libraries. The concept of age appropriate is probably too vague to withstand scrutiny and a suit against would likely prevail. That would take time and in the interim this would stand and chill Library work. It would be fun to turn it on its head to say the Bible, with its depictions of incest, genocide, and racism, is age inappropriate and suggest this will prevent libraries from circulating or allowing online access to minors. 

    Michael 

    Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
    Get Outlook for Android





  • 11.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 11:05 AM
    What is age appropriate? Define it. That is the question.

    --
    Alec C. McFarlane






  • 12.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 11:16 AM

    There isn't a definition. It's completely subjective and convenient phrase for the outrage culture to latch on to.

     

    Jim Bass, MLS| Assistant Branch Manager

    Lafayette Public Library

    301 W. Congress | P.O. Box 3427 | Lafayette,  LA 70502

    phone: 337-886-6292   | fax: 337-261-5782   | email: jim.bass@lafayettepubliclibrary.org

     

    Kurt-Vonnegut-quote-about-libraries-from-A-Man-Without-a-Country-1c13190

     

     






  • 13.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 12:48 PM
    Right. But from a legal point of view, given past Court decisions, these people don't seem to think they need to  really define it. Roth v. US;  Miller v. Ca, etc. 

    https://www.sos.mo.gov/cmsimages/adrules/csr/current/15csr/15c30-200.pdf

    https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=573.010

    "Contemporary community standards"
    "Prurient interest"
    "Average person" 

    And all that stuff.  They're leaving it open to a local jury, board or commission to decide what's age appropriate/obscene. Very old fashioned. Your thought that something like "age appropriate" is too vague to be meaningful echoes what--Brennan? Marshall?--said in the Miller v. CA decision. We need us a First Amendment lawyer up in here.

    ------------------------------
    Darryl Eschete
    Director
    West Des Moines Public Library
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 01:52 PM
    Right, I was begging the question. My illustration of the CRPD was of entrenchment and of how the deciding line is drawn. What is "age appropriate" for sexual matters is not going to be the same as what is "age appropriate" for other matters. The "Who Decides" part I was illustrating was not so much between government and/or some school board as it was between parent and child, where the parent often makes decisions contrary to the child's wishes.

    Where the CRPD granted rights to the child, and when that serves as a legal doctrine, it then changes the dynamics.

    Consider in the abstract child marriage, it is not common in the USA or is it? What legal technicalities govern marriage? Surprisingly, in some 20 states in the USA there are no explicit age limits [https://www.equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us/] and this is another contradiction in terms of sex education and sexuality in general; we deny sex education and matters of sexuality but allow a 13 year old to marry.

    First Amendment Lawyer? Kind of reminds me of Larry Flint and his escapades with the law, somehow his liberating influence seems to have waned. Ours is not so much a battle of law as it is a battle over preponderance of belief... and/or the preponderance of belief of those in power.

    --
    Alec C. McFarlane






  • 15.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 02:43 PM
    There is apparently a month before public comment, if I'm reading right. John Chrastka from EveryLibrary will be preparing comment, working with MLA, and more widely, to gin up opposition. Deborah CS is aware and working on it with MLA  We need to work out how to have voices be heard. Ashcroft in Missouri apparently is an old foe of the ALA. We don't have to play into their hands and be thought to be "pro obscenity."  We will have to reframe the dialog.  I bet most people in Missouri don't want to be the "Show me the book burning" state. 

    Michael






  • 16.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 20, 2022 02:59 PM
    Edited by Ayana Looney Oct 27, 2022 03:34 PM
    I see that on November 15, 2022, a 30-day comment period will open. I've drafted a comment/letter, now updated with Michael Blackwell, Darryl Eschete, and Carolyn Caywood's suggestions. How might I make it stronger? What edits might anyone suggest?


    Please note, on 10/27/22, I added info to the fourth paragraph, and I corrected a typo in the first paragraph. I also emailed intake@aclu-mo.org asking for assistance in finalizing the draft letter below.


    As a Librarian, it is my official duty to uphold First Amendment rights and personal freedoms for all by supporting the Freedom to Read. The text of Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft's proposed rule includes several regulatory actions that entirely oppose the most foundational value in American democracy: the Freedom of Speech. The proposed rule 15 CSR 30-200.15 will not empower parents but will almost certainly lead to government censorship and book banning in schools and public libraries. I denounce all efforts to censor and ban books in school and public libraries and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft's attempt to supersede parental choice with government regulation.

    Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft's proposed rule establishing a "library certification requirement … to protect minors from non-age-appropriate materials" directly violates Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982). According to Board of Education v. Pico, the First Amendment limits the power of government officials to restrict or remove access to books due to content (ACLU, Bill of Rights Institute, & The First Amendment Encyclopedia, 1 ).

    Parents have the right to determine what is age-appropriate for their own children. Individual parents and government officials do not have the right to decide what books are age-appropriate for other people's children. Until a child's First Amendment rights and personal freedoms are obstructed or abridged by their own parent, a child has the right to make their own decisions about what they read. According to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate" (National Constitution Center & American Library Association). 

    Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft's proposed rule will allow government officials to unjustly interfere with and impede the First Amendment rights and personal freedoms for all. The proposed rule will not only deny children their fundamental, Constitutionally-protected access to reading materials but will also deny each parent the right to choose reading materials for their own children. Government officials do not have the right to decide which books are available in schools and public libraries for parents and children wishing to explore issues and viewpoints independently. Moreover, to hide his political objections to books and materials by and about BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ people, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft uses the term "age-appropriate" to regulate the right to receive information on a wide range of topics from a variety of viewpoints (The First Amendment Encyclopedia, 2).

    Librarians like myself provide access to materials vital to a well-rounded education and are crucial developmental tools for literacy, lifelong learning, and civic participation (Unite Against Book Bans & American Library Association). It is not the responsibility of government officials to impede, abridge, or interfere with the First Amendment rights of children or prohibit children from reading. It is the responsibility, and the right, of individual parents to police their own minor children in the library and no one else's, including the Missouri government (Library Bill of Rights). Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft's proposed rule number 15 CSR 30-200.15 is un-American government regulation.



    ------------------------------
    Sincerely,

    Ayana (eye-on-ah) Looney, MLIS
    Technical Services Library Assistant, California State Library
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 603-7136
    ayana.looney@library.ca.gov
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 21, 2022 09:32 AM
    Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft last week announced a new proposed rule he says will protect minors in the state's libraries. But librarians and freedom to read advocates fear the ...
    Ayana, this looks very good to me.

    I might modify this sentence, which brings in the condemnation too early (before the subject has been discussed).

    "I denounce the censorship and banning of books in school and public libraries."


    Maybe say "I question the aims of a recent development in Missouri that will almost certainly lead to censorship and banning of books in school and public libraries."?

    Then as the last sentence say "I denounce this attempt at the censorship and banning of books in school and public libraries."?

    Good stuff--well said!

    Michael





  • 18.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 21, 2022 10:23 AM

    The only thing that would jump out at me is: "school/government officials do not have the right to decide what books are age-appropriate for other people's children."

     

    Which would then invite a line of questioning: If a school official (read: school librarian/curriculum specialist) doesn't have the right to decide what books are age appropriate in a school or school library, then who is making those decisions now-and why--and who should make them in the future? And don't school officials make a huge number of decisions about propriety for other people's children on any given day? And if government officials don't have the right to decide what books are age-appropriate in public libraries, then why do children's and teen/YA sections exist in those libraries?

     

    This whole bit of nonsense is arguably a transparent attempt to equate "age-appropriate" with "desexualized" and/or "lacking any mention of LGBTQ+ or racism issues." I would suggest tweaking your statement slightly to say "school/government officials do not have the right to decide what books should be available to children wishing to independently explore issues, hiding their objections to anything they disagree with or are uncomfortable with behind a firewall of 'age appropriateness'." Or something like that.

     

    Now, I think any argument made will always risk the "slippery slope" comeback: "Then what's to stop librarians/school officials from putting  {INSERT GRAPHIC/EROTIC PHOTO ESSAY COFFEE TABLE BOOK HERE} in a school library or children's collection?" Somebody smarter than me will have to think through the rhetorical pre-emption to that. Because they DO ask that kind of thing.

     






  • 19.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
    Posted Oct 21, 2022 11:21 AM
    Edited by Cory Stevenson Oct 24, 2022 04:56 PM
    This post was removed


  • 20.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 21, 2022 10:12 PM
    What does he know? What do you know? What is the difference between a "School official" and "government"? The question is so broad as to be meaningless, a school official is a government created entity.

    Government, in your use, appears to be about the mandate given.

    --
    Alec C. McFarlane






  • 21.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 21, 2022 04:19 PM
    Never repeat the other side's talking points or catch-phrases or
    terminology.

    Carolyn




  • 22.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 21, 2022 06:34 PM
    I agree with Daryl Eschete's concern and suggestion.   In general,  we librarians need more discussion about the principles and educational philosophy that prepare us for collection development in a democratic society for the purpose of promoting critical thinking and empathy.  
    Best,
    Frieda Afary






  • 23.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 21, 2022 09:34 PM
    Edited by Ayana Looney Oct 21, 2022 09:44 PM

    Yes, Frieda Afary, I agree we need more discussion about collection development policy and procedures. I also think librarians need to discuss openly and often how we can partner with parents to help them and their children pick out books and materials.

     

    When I worked in a public library, often a patron would learn about the collection development policy after an informal or formal complaint about a book in the library. Patrons should know about the collection development policy BEFORE they are upset, angry, or in crisis.

     

    Maybe we need a "more you know campaign" on collection development and intellectual freedom.

    ~Ayana




  • 24.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 23, 2022 07:43 PM
    More discussion about collection policies would be a good thing.

    Ongoing community conversations that involve more than the library staff would also be helpful and could head off shouting matches at school and library board meetings.

    Deborah Doyle
    cell: 415-269-0540






  • 25.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 21, 2022 09:14 PM
    Edited by Ayana Looney Oct 21, 2022 09:45 PM
    Regarding "Never repeat the other side's talking points or catch-phrases or terminology."

    Fixed it, thanks Carolyn :)

    Thank you,
    ~Ayana



  • 26.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 21, 2022 07:11 PM
    My point exactly, this stuff does NOT exist in a vacuum.

    Your quote:
    "This whole bit of nonsense is arguably a transparent attempt to equate "age-appropriate" with "desexualized" and/or "lacking any mention of LGBTQ+ or racism issues." I would suggest tweaking your statement slightly to say "school/government officials do not have the right to decide what books should be available to children wishing to independently explore issues, hiding their objections to anything they disagree with or are uncomfortable with behind a firewall of 'age appropriateness'." Or something like that."

    Extrapolate this to the extents and you will realize that your personal participation in the recent "Code of Conduct" thread was about me, and me alone as THE censored individual IN THE ALA.

    You guys want to solve problems? Start looking at yourselves, our own house is out of order. Critical thinking? Try again, whatever it is you are propagating is the problem. Dealing with this issue in a vacuum just gives the appearance that we are doing something.  We are not.

    Alec C. McFarlane





  • 27.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 24, 2022 11:09 AM
    Edited by Ayana Looney Oct 24, 2022 11:09 AM
    Dear Alec McFarlane,

    I think Darryl Eschete has a valid point about the transparent attempt to equate "age-appropriate" with "desexualized" and/or "lacking any mention of LGBTQ+ or racism issues." I agree that Missouri is using "age-appropriate" to remove books by and about BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ people. I will incorporate some of his ideas into the short fourth paragraph later today.

    Alec, I totally agree that decision-makers are the children and the parents. Librarians have a long history of relying on publishers and publications like ALA Booklist to determine the target audience for books selected AND partnering with children and parents to help readers find their books. It could be that including information about collection development, and selection processes might improve the draft letter.

    I hope the letter will be a good template for us to use by the time the comment period opens in November. It's a small thing I can do to be a part of a solution.

    Thank you for reading,
    ~Ayana



  • 28.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 25, 2022 12:59 AM
    Ayana Looney

    Sometimes I am not quite clear and sometimes I come from afar but I am not thinking as a lobbyist as much as I am as a social critic trying to delve into the subjects of meaning. What, really, do these terms mean? We are making judgements as to what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong, and this is rather in contrary of what we want to be doing vis-à-vis intellectual freedom.

    Your first paragraphs has a lot of terms that either have no definition, or otherwise depend upon a presumption that has no factual basis. Using a singular, "Age appropriate" as a code word for some type of discriminatory exclusion sounds like science fiction. I am not saying that discrimination is not happening but rather that we are confused about cause and effect, beginning with what causes racism in the first place. Otherwise we are just talking about the consequences, the effects, and that is a never-ending task. Our confusion here paves the way for a molehill to become a mountain, and we are already on the mountain top --just not the one we want. 

    Finally, I am not talking about parents AND children but children in EXCLUSION of parents; rights by and for the child itself.

    My citations of the CRPD are about Article 7 whereas the debate (I was there) was centered around the unwillingness of parents to abdicate their power over a child. Maybe that was a poor choice of words but the battle often unseen is where the child wants something different than the parent. We have, for instance, issues in the disability community where we have horror stories from adults all the time about the fact that they never had real input and real decision making power in their treatments, their solutions, their devices, their schools, and more. In the deaf community children are being implanted with Cochlear Implants (CI) as early as 2 months of age and this is invasive surgery that requires years and years of training and stuff that includes monthly mapping sessions and all kinds of phonics-related things and these children have no say. Now, of course, I am not saying that a 2 month old child should be able to decide, what I am saying is that these things are actually being mandated by some courts here and in other countries and it is rather controversial. We literally drill a hole in the skull and shave off the cochlea and that is an effective end to any future regenerative technologies derived from, say, sea anemones. And this is the least of it, the educational pathway is a whole 'nother story and is predicated upon the premise used in the first place to justify drilling a hole in a child's head. To wit, phonics dominate the child's educational trajectory notwithstanding the fact of deafness in the first. The social justice issue becomes one of language access and the dichotomy between input methodologies and what reading and writing are all about, hint, reading and writing are not hearing, speaking, or signing.

    So what is age appropriate and how do we both empower and protect children? This is something to be continued, is it not?

    ------------------------------
    Alec McFarlane
    President
    New Image Associates - Construction Consultants
    ------------------------------



  • 29.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 28, 2022 01:26 PM

    Hi all,

     

    EveryLibrary, with which most of you are likely familiar, is working with the MLA on coordinating national partners in a public outreach campaign.  There is a call on 11/4 to talk about a coordinated effort.  I'll share details about plans then.

     

    Comments received before 11/15 are "out of order" and won't be considered.

     

    Expect a digital campaign for the 30 day comment window to start on 11/9.

     

    In the interim, may we please verify what, if anything, IFRT can do as a group?  Apparently we couldn't do a group statement on Salman Rushdie (hence the blog post). Could we sign on to a effort as a partner? Will we have to respond individually/have our libraries weigh in?

     

    Thanks for clarifying on this point.  Sorry I'm not better informed abut how we can act as a group!

     

    Michael

     

     

    Michael Blackwell

    Director, St Mary's County Library

    23630 Hayden Farm Lane

    Leonardtown, MD 20650

    301-475-2151 x5013

    Cell phone:  301-904-3048

    mblackwell@stmalib.org

     

    SMCL Logo transparent

     

     

     






  • 30.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 21, 2022 10:57 AM
    Edited by Ayana Looney Oct 21, 2022 09:44 PM
    Dear Michael,

    Thank you so much for the edit suggestion! I've updated the text of my original post.

    I appreciate your time and assistance.

    Thanks,
    ~Ayana



  • 31.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 21, 2022 10:10 AM
    Edited by Ayana Looney Oct 21, 2022 10:13 AM
    Regarding "What is age appropriate? Define it. That is the question."

    It's not what, but who gets to define age-appropriate. Parents should determine what is age-appropriate for their own child if they choose to, not school admin or government.

    ------------------------------
    Sincerely,

    Ayana (eye-on-ah) Looney, MLIS
    Technical Services Library Assistant, California State Library
    Sacramento, CA 95814
    (916) 603-7136
    ayana.looney@library.ca.gov
    ------------------------------



  • 32.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 06:41 AM
    This is beyond distressing (I assume this Ashcroft is the son of the Ashcroft who was Dubya's ''PATRIOT" Act enforcer?)--another brick in the totalitarian MAGA edifice in which women are second class citizens, LBTQ people are persecuted, children are the chattels of their parents, and a perverted "Christianity" is enforced by Morality Police.  It is also so foolish--unless Ashcroft and his ilk confiscate juvenile's smart 'phones, they will have no shortage of age-"inappropriate" materials.  I do hope this is a skirmish in the culture wars that will vanish after the midterm elections, but I fear it is not.  Be strong and united, Missouri librarians!  Michael
    -------------------------------
    Michael Gorman
    525 W. Superior, #225
    Chicago, Illinois 60654

    -------------------------------
    312-475-0857

                              





  • 33.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 11:10 AM
    Missouri Librarians are standing strong, but there is a wave going through the state.  Our state passed SB775 in August, which applies the "sexually explicit" language to school libraries, which is resulting in forced and self censorship of school libraries, since the law fines and jails the people responsible for providing material.  41 school districts in the state currently have boards, parent groups, etc. trying and succeeding to remove items from school libraries.  There's a "tabled" lawsuit from the ACLU filed against one of these districts. Our state org is doing what it can.  
    MO's hard right shift is strangling libraries.

    ------------------------------
    Cynthia M Dudenhoffer
    Associate Teaching Professor & Program Coordinator
    Univ. Of Missouri SISLT
    ------------------------------



  • 34.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 11:18 AM

    It would be great if you could slyly put a note somewhere that says "Can't find what you're looking for? Try the Brooklyn Public Library, available to all students!"

     

    Jim Bass, MLS| Assistant Branch Manager

    Lafayette Public Library

    301 W. Congress | P.O. Box 3427 | Lafayette,  LA 70502

    phone: 337-886-6292   | fax: 337-261-5782   | email: jim.bass@lafayettepubliclibrary.org

     

    Kurt-Vonnegut-quote-about-libraries-from-A-Man-Without-a-Country-1c13190

     

     






  • 35.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 19, 2022 08:06 PM
    I love this statement from MLA during BBW: "Librarians are no shrinking violets, don't let our cardigans and thick-rimmed glasses fool you. None of us want to be arrested for doing our jobs, but we will not sacrifice our ethical and moral principles simply because we are threatened,"   Together we are a mighty army of cardigans.

    ------------------------------
    Wanda Huffaker
    Librarian
    Salt Lake County Library
    ------------------------------



  • 36.  RE: Disturbing development in Missouri

    Posted Oct 20, 2022 10:32 AM
    This is indeed not good news.  We are gearing up for the next legislative session here in Tenn.  Thank you for attaching documents.  We will use these to plan!

    ------------------------------
    Xan Lasko
    Librarian/Media Specialist
    Rutherford County Schools
    She/Her/Hers
    ------------------------------