next »

[Forums Moderator]

The "overwhelming prevalence" of leftist views among librarians has "created a politicized atmosphere of groupthink and intolerance," writes David Durant, a self-described conservative librarian, in The Chronicle. If librarians are supposed to defend intellectual freedom and diversity of opinion, how can they allow their profession to be "a bastion of orthodoxy"? Is it appropriate for the American Library Association to take stands on political issues, such as a recent resolution calling for the United States to leave Iraq?
Read more...

[%sig%]

[Earl Lee, Pittsburg State]

I believe the library profession has been forced to lean to the Left because of a constant stream of attacks by Conservatives who like to use the local library as a whipping boy.  I believe that as other institutions--churches, corportations, and even organizations like the Red Cross and AARP--shift to the Right that libraries are being attacked as
"leftist" or "left-leaning" because we take the Bill of Rights seriously.

[%sig%]

[B.J.S., regular humanoid]

As a political independent (GDI) who believes in liberty -- I believe what happened is imbalance.

As my friendly acquaintances on the left like to point out, the academy is one of the few places left with (1) strong unions, (2) government work rules, and (3) some sembalance of free speech in the workplace. And so my friends on the left at the academy have driven out, anyone who is not 99% like themselves, over time.

This is not good. When you have a concentration of power, choking off liberty -- whether the Standard Oil trust, FDR & the Supreme Court-packing issue, Tammany Hall, Nixon & Watergate, Clinton & female employees, Bush v Gore, or the alleged "civil service" -- there will be problems, complaints, and corrective actions. And there has been, in this case.

[Zoe Losada, School Counselor]

It's interesting that Mr. Durant claims that left-leaning librarians are intolerant, yet the only objection he seems to be raising  is that he does not agree with his colleagues' opinions. He does not give a single example of how he has been treated unfairly or discrimated against because of his views; he simply feels offended because many librarians disagree with him. Whether or not I agree with the left-leaning librarians, I do believe they have the right to think however they please, and to express their beliefs freely, as does Mr. Durant.

[%sig%]

[Robert in MA]

Mr. Lee,

Yes, it's that "vast right-wing conspiracy" at work again, eh?

Actually, in at least some cases, it's conservatives who are having to file suit to force libraries to abide by the Bill of Rights.  See
http://www.lc.org/pressrelease/2005/nr091505.htm for one example.

By the way, since when is the AARP "shift[ing] to the Right"?

[%sig%]

[Lindsay Stratton, MSLIS studen]

Mr. Durant makes a valid point that libraries are overwhelmingly liberal and generally hostile to conservatives, or, heaven help them, registered Republicans. He is also correct in condemning the politicization of the library profession. For an organization that claims: “Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas” (ALA Library Bill of Rights, Section IV) their overt political stance is akin to campaigning outside a polling place. But it is disingenuous to frame the argument solely as a left/right divide over the so-called "War on Terror".

There are many factors fueling this particular ideological division, including the role of religion determining public policy, a changing face of conservatism (are we talking social conservatives? Fiscal conservatives? Paleoconservatives? Neoconservatives? Sunday morning conservatives?), and a disproportionate number of library employees who have suffered, and continue to suffer, from the sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, and anti-intellectual ideologies expressed by many of the most vocal conservatives, as well as the many people libraries serve who have suffered, and continue to suffer, the consequences of governmental policies based on “conservative” ideology.

I am not making apologies for liberal intolerance, because it certainly exists, just as conservative intolerance exists. But I think that in order to honestly, honorably, and usefully discuss the issue we have to be able to sort out the many strands of the problem, excise our feelings of petty tit-for-tat, and take responsibility for the ramifications of our words and actions.

[%sig%]

[Armand LeBlanc]

One of the things that you will not hear discussed in library forums is the careful choice of resource materials that tend to shift library collections to the political left.

Collection and Electronic Resource librarians who are radical leftists tend to choose materials that support their political viewpoints.  Of course, they make no apologies for this, since they are certain that their viewpoints are unassailably correct.

Materials from conservative authors and groups are simply not purchased.  Is this really freedom of speech in action?

[%sig%]

[Theron P. Snell, UWP]

"Group think?"  "Echo Chamber?" " Left wing othodoxy?"  I am perplexed!  When looking at political reality, Left wing and othodoxy  cannot be put in the same sentence, let  alone the same phrase.  I worry, therefore, that  Mr. Durant in turn sees the world through othodoxy-colored glasses if he uses this language.

More importantly,  I find it ironic that in the face of faux news, corporate ascendency,  the commodification or consumerization of social functions that Mr. Durant cries foul  when these values are challenged.  

Looking around me, I find strong conservative views as well as strong neo-liberal views;  I find very little of what might pass for traditional "leftist" or radical views  of whatever stripe.  

As for his contention that professional groups should not take political stances, I would argue that NOT taking a position in fact reenforces an orthodoxy in its own right.  That orothodxy holds, in part,  that information and education are neutral, that the cultural matrix through which we view the world is unchangeable, 'natural'  and 'correct.'  I would suggest that  the role of the librarian is to challenge, to guide and to help users think critically about the issues they wish to explore.  Perhaps the ALA took a political stance because the group saw that the orthodoxy in place threatens the kind of work librarians  do and limits the rights of both librarians and patrons to actually think critically.

[D J Ford, Physiology Prof]

Did you read the article?

I think this summed up the point of the article in question: "The problem is not that most librarians have liberal or leftist views. It is that the overwhelming prevalence of such views has created a politicized atmosphere of groupthink and even intolerance, in which left-wing politics permeate the library profession and are almost impossible to avoid."

Defintion
Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Function: adjective
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

Example 1: Intolerance was illustrated by the selection of speakers for annual meetings. A tolerant non-partisan organization (as professional associations are supposed to be) would not restrict itself to only speakers from the political left. If I only talked about the scientific theories that I agreed with, my students would be being indoctrinated and not educated. Intentional restriction to one point-of-view is indoctrination and clearly demonstrates intolerance.

Example 2: A special benefit showing of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Tolerant, objective people do not show political propoganda films. Especially when they are entirely from one side of the political spectrum. If they had shown "Birth of a Nation" would that have been appropriate and tolerant?

Example 3: "The politicized atmosphere in Orlando included clear intolerance toward dissenting viewpoints. Whitney Davison-Turley, a liberal, spoke at the membership meeting against a resolution condemning the war in Iraq, arguing that it was inappropriate for the ALA to take a stand on the issue. Her comments got a hostile response. Later she wrote: "Protecting the freedom of speech is a core tenet of librarianship, and this tenet was violated during the Membership Meeting. Shaming alternative opinions into silence is the same as placing a gag over our mouths, and this is not what librarians supposedly stand for." Is this not an example of intolerance to different points of view?

Example 4: "When I do go to a professional meeting, I sit silently. When the conservative-bashing starts, as it so often does, I know better than to complain." Is this not a personal example from the author that illustrates intolerance. We say that sexual harrassment involves making the work environment so hostile as to make it intolerable for the victim. Is this not a form of harrassment and intolerance?

Let's say I were to form a group of physiology professors. Just by accident we happened to all be caucasian. At our first annual meeting we saw that we were all caucasian and decided to sit around telling jokes about african-americans, hispanics, whatever. At our next meeting we had our first african-american member. We continued with the joke telling as we had previously. Is that acceptable behaviour for professionals? Would our new african-american member feel welcome and free to express him/herself? Methinks not.

Definition: Professional = of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged in one of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace

What the author described doesn't sound like professional, ethical, businesslike behaviour to me.

[Janet Crum, librarian, OHSU]

We in the library profession are supposed to promote tolerance and access to all viewpoints.  We need to walk our talk.  There's a difference between sharing your political opinion politely with others and forcing it on co-workers or (worse) subordinates who may not share your views.  All members of the library profession, regardless of political views, should feel welcome in their own workplaces and at any professional gathering.  If we are to have any credibility when we stand up against censorship and fight to include unpopular viewpoints in our collections, we must set an example by standing up against intolerance and making room for minority viewpoints within our profession.

[%sig%]

[B. Miller, attorney]

Re: ". . .Section 215 is not without its flaws, and I firmly believe that ensuring the privacy of library transactions is an important priority for our profession. However, much of the reaction among librarians to the USA Patriot Act has been over the top. As an example, some libraries have put up posters that warn patrons the FBI can view their library records. That is little short of fearmongering.

For one thing, the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies have always been able to obtain library records after getting a subpoena. In addition, the available evidence indicates that FBI agents aren't exactly trampling each other in a rush to scrutinize libraries' circulation records. . . "

1.  If professional librarians have succumbed to fearmongering in order to be heard, then they learned that from the highest levels of this Administration, which perpetrated a costly and immoral war based on that very tactic;

2.  The key words here are "AFTER GETTING A SUBPONA."  The standard of proof required to obtain a subpoena in order to view library records is much higher than that required by the Patriot Act, and therein lies the difference.

3.  The only available "evidence" DOES indicate that FBI agents "aren't exactly trampling each other in a rush to scruitinze libraries' circulation records". But it has been collected and "analyzed" by the same people who gave us the Patriot Act itself!  Any wonder why there's a little skepticism?

[JS, WSU librarian]

Imagine that we turn out liberal!  Go figure.

Perhaps the author has a new and updated set of values we should adopt? I think not!

[%sig%]

[JS WSU]

Our profession is based on the ideals of the Enlightenment.  If that makes us "guilty" of "group think," that's something I can live with.  Please excuse us for not opening our minds to ideas that restrict, demean, and cheapen the idea of free access to information.

[Jose Suarez, Professor/UNC]

Why do we keep harping about this issue? People who are educated and read cannot be ignorant, self-centered, and supersticious. How many clergy are atheists? How many Jews were Nazis? College professors and librarians who are right-wingers will ALWAYS be a gross minority.

[%sig%]

[Theron P. Snell]

I read the article;  did you read my response?

I still find it perplexing that both you and Mr. Durant see the screening of Moore's Fahenheit 9/11 a political act (the film simply propaganda) and cannot see that White House and Corporate press releases, information downloads and speechs via Faux News are propaganda in their own right as well.  Given this, which has more power and greater impact?  

I see only that Mr. Durant is worried that the opinions of the group differ from his.  Stip him of his rant, he sounds only miffed.  

He seems to define 'being political' as any act that challenges not only his own point of view but also one that calls into question the assumptions upon which he wants to make decisions.   Sounds  like critical thinking is itself a political act.  To me, the ALA seems to see in the Patriot Act an assault on critical thinking and the processes that librarians should aid and support.  The political acts of the government, the group seems to say, affect the ability of librarians to do their jobs.  

By the way, the FBI only needs NSL's to invoke the Patriot Act  and NSL's do not need any proof at all..only the statement that the FBI has an ongoing investigation.

The