The Book Banners Who've Launched Their Own Library Association
It fools no one, but it's worth looking at
For dozens of years, the American Library Association (ALA) has faced pushback from members and nonmembers alike. Starting in about 1999, one man took up the mantle to serve as a sort of watch dog to the organization. The individual, who loves to Google himself, has dedicated over 20 years to challenging the foundational beliefs of the organization and its members–both libraries and individuals alike–when it comes to intellectual freedom. He’s been responsible for launching several campaigns and being engaged in numerous controversies related to book censorship, “protecting” children, and indeed, playing the role of tattletale when a librarian says something on social media he disagrees with. He maintains a robust website encouraging other people to join his crusade and he documents what he sees as dangers to the organization.
That individual’s work quieted down during the pandemic. Or at least it did until book censors started to play the role of crisis actors in board meeting after board meeting across the country. Dan has taken the opportunity to rebrand during this time, aligning his bigger message into smaller doses which allow him to become a spokesperson, role model, and leader for a contingent of the book ban bigotry brigade. He ostensibly still cares about libraries, though he’s far more interested in ascribing this idea that libraries are sexually harassing people now through their commitment to intellectual freedom and having books about queer people on shelves. He has given language to individuals and groups who are eager to label librarians as groomers and has found fame among them, excitedly cheering as states like Montana and others push toward disassociating with the nation’s largest professional association for librarians.
Now, he’s on a mission to establish a library association to “rival” that of ALA.
The World Library Association (WLA) is something to behold. In addition to the low budget visuals, the text in and of itself is a hoot. First, what does it mean for the library to be “your library, your way?” That’s text for a Burger King, not a professional library association aiming to be a one-stop shop across the country (and, presumably, the world).^
Jokes aside, the deeper messaging here is not only troubling, it’s contradictory.
Per the article linked on the organization’s front page, “The association seeks to reestablish libraries free of inappropriate materials for children, an internet not subject to the salacious eyes of (mostly men) seeking a free thrill, and a politically neutral library work environment.”^^ For a library to remain “politically neutral,” that rest of the sentence would not be possible–filtering and censorship are political actions, not the moves of the neutral. As you continue reading the article, it becomes clear this is a public relations and marketing piece and not, in fact, a news release. Indeed, the Carolina Journal is an arm of the John Locke society, aimed at constitutional politics. They’re conservatives interested in limited government. Why would they be interested in highlighting an organization who purports to be about neutrality?*
We know the answer.
The people behind the newly formed organization are not librarians nor do they have any formal education or training in how libraries operate. But the slate of all-white presenting founders do have something in common with libraries: many are on the boards which have overstepped their authority and demanded dozens, if not hundreds, of books be removed from shelves. They’re on the boards of libraries where well-loved and capable directors have left, even after long tenures, because the board decided their role was dictatorial, rather than advisory. They’re on boards in states where censorship has grown, thanks to policies people like them have demanded of their legislatures under the guise of “protecting the children.”
Among the leadership:
The aforementioned Dan. What has he done in libraries? A lot of agitation.
The of Special Projects at the Maine First Project, whose objectives you can see here:
A “Gay Catholic Conservative” provocateur who has written about how much he hates the public library
Two members of the Campbell County Public Library Board, which has had one of the most contentious several years of book challenges, all spearheaded by a local church. The popular director of this library was fired this month for refusing to give into their right-wing politics. She lost her job doing her job.
A board member of Christian County Public Library in Missouri, where the board just voted to not implement a content rating system. This particular member is into alternative health and eschewing the medical system, so I’m sure she’s got a good foundation in research, especially with her emphasis on “freedom” and being a “patriot.’
A board member from the Tyler Public Library (Texas), where books have been moved around over “complaints.” This board member has been a proponent of right-wing hysteria over books like Gender Queer and gotten plenty of press locally and through the right-wing media who’ve eaten up this nonsense for clicks.
A CPA whose connection with public libraries is dubious at best. He might be on retainer for his local library but he’s not currently serving there in any capacity.
For an organization claiming to be about neutrality, it’s hard to see where that philosophy can even start.
WLA will be a “free” association, in an attention to undermine the fact it is costly to be an ALA member. They’re right on that–it is expensive to be in ALA, let alone to attend any of their events–but a “free” alternative comes with wholly different costs. Namely, now you’re associated with the right-wing Christian nationalist members eager to destroy the public and school libraries across the country. They own your email.
True neutrality in the library is impossible, and it should never be the goal. The fact WLA wants to use a talking point from the ALA that has been so grossly misunderstood–neutrality–tells you all they understand about the term and its meaning. Where true neutrality would mean allowing everything to be completely accessible, such as a filter free internet station, what right-wing individuals don’t like about neutrality is that it puts the onus on the individual to make decisions. These people want to be the ones to decide who does and does not get access to the world of information; they cry “protect the children” only when it means they get to do so, not the parents/guardians whose job it is to teach their children what is and is not appropriate in their family.
A completely neutral library is a library that does not exist. We know that this is the ultimate goal, of course, and it perhaps also explains why joining this “professional” organization costs nothing.
What should fire you up, though, is how little respect or regard that this organization has for people who work in libraries, for educators, or for anyone who cares about the truth, about facts, and about information literacy. They really believe library workers are not smart enough to do a little Googling to find out who is behind this and what their actual background and experience is. That should insult every single one of us who sees the value in libraries and who sees the value in literacy, period. These are the people who are making decisions about what happens in your public library and in your public schools. These are the people who think they know better than you and these are the people who claim to be victims again and again and again. If they can control who and what is in the library, they can control who and who comes out. Eliminate spaces where thinking is encouraged, championed, and taught, and you create a malleable public.
If that doesn’t terrify you, I don’t know what will.
Further Notes:
^People involved in this right-wing nonsense also believe their way is the only way. That “your library, your way” means only if your way is their way. How does neutrality work when your library is your way? It doesn’t.
^^Never one to usually defend men here, but it is always interesting that there is a specific stereotype of who might look at nudity on the internet at the public library. It’s interesting this uses the same inflammatory language seen in the panic over trans athletes and trans bathroom rights.
*The other newspaper to cover the story of the launch of this group is in Gillette, where two of the board members live. Does the journalist do any work here to explain the truth of the matter? You know the answer already. This is just as disingeuous and embarrassing as the dozens of newspapers citing BookLooks as some kind of legitimate resource. I worry about how we’re going to know how to navigate information if even the newspapers don’t do two seconds of Googling to find out more, let alone what kind of work the “do your own research” folks do.