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.
I am going to own the part that I may have played in this and explain why. I realize I may not be popular, but I did not aim for popularity. "According to lore" is not lore, is not lore. I am indeed the librarian. For some months after "book banning" starting I attempted to put myself in the position of those who were making requests, and ask why they were really doing it. I wanted a conversation, not a debate. I sat down with Brooke Stephens, and we began to communicate by phone, text and in person. I told her that I wanted removing books to stop, and we agreed that fighting and litigation was expensive. We discussed how libraries provided information, particularly about books. We had very many resources that guided people on how to find books. We could guide people to resources. Perhaps if she had a resource we could guide people to, it could be one of the many that we guided people to. Parents could direct their children to check that resource when they came to the library, rather than remove the books. This could possibly appease the parents, and also be a source for parents. Librarians are under no obligation to use it. But it can be another library resource for information. As long as we are adversarial, believe we know everything, make no attempt to understand or reach out to each other, we will make no progress. Maybe be I haven't stopped all books from being banned, but I have made a friend, and we are at least talking about it.
What Is The National Book Rating Index?: Another "New" Review Tool Attempting to Legitimize Bias in Book Evaluation • Buttondown