There were two prominent take-aways from this summer’s five-day annual conference of the American Library Association that I attended in Chicago: the evils of so-called book banning and the flamboyant acceptance of the LGBTQIA+ agenda.
I witnessed the ALA manipulate language in order to create fear in librarians. They identified a person who questioned a book as a “book banner.” Several speakers described people who challenged a book as “dangerous.” I heard no one openly question this over-the-top language.
Several sessions focused on book challenges which the ALA presented with an us-against-them viewpoint. They held up librarians as the defenders of freedom and intimated that any book challenged was a threat to the freedom to read for all people.
Advice was given on how a librarian should prepare for meeting with a concerned citizen asking for the removal of a book or books. Librarians were told to be familiar with state laws and their own library policies regarding book challenges.
One session was led by three librarians who gave tips on handling book challengers. Two mentioned they have their talking points taped on top of their desks so they can quickly respond to a person complaining about a book. I learned quickly that no librarian who follows ALA guidance will ever say, “Oh, you’re right. That book should not have been on the shelf.”
Every day attendees could hear speakers on topics like: “Help! They’re Coming For Our Books!” and “Understanding and Combating Book Bans” and “Changing the Narrative: ALA Policy Corps Takes On Book Banners.”
Throughout the conference, the ALA was honoring, affirming, lifting up all things LGBTQIA+. Instead of having a breakout session to help attendees learn how to rekindle a love of reading for middle schoolers, they had a session called “Beyond the Middle School Rainbow: Intersectionality in LGBTQIA+ Middle Grade Books.” And for younger children, librarians could choose to attend the session called, “Promoting Diverse LGBTQIA+ Narratives in Picture Book Collections.”
The conference attendees passed Resolution 59 that states, “Whereas it has been observed that 61% of pride festivals in the top 50 most populated cities in the United States occur during the second and fourth week of June; Whereas the ALA’s Annual Conference, traditionally held during the fourth week of June, conflicts with many pride festivals, leading to difficulties for the 1,476 Rainbow Round Table members and other LGBTQIA+ members of the ALA to fully participate in both events….” The resolution therefore calls for the ALA annual conference to be moved from its longtime position in June to a more LGBTQIA+ convenient date.
One slide summed up the ALA’s position on book challenges. “Parents have the right to guide their children’s reading, but parents should not be making decisions for other parent’s children. Specifically, a small group of parents should not dictate what books other people’s children are allowed to read.”
Another slide stated, “We can trust individuals to make their own decisions about what they read and believe.” This applies to all patrons no matter the age. The ALA wants librarians to consider all children as with the maturity of adults and be able to decide for themselves what they read.
An attorney on the Intellectual Freedom committee said that it was very difficult for any book to be considered obscene. He advised that the courts would consider the value of the book as a whole. Is the book completely without merit? Few books are. Attendees were told that the law is on the library’s side.
If a book is offensive to you, rather than asking for it to be removed, you might have greater success asking for it to be moved to a restricted area in the library where parents may have more control.
Librarians are taught that no book challenge is legitimate; only the books they choose deserve to be on the library shelf. It’s hard to reason with ALA librarians who are counseled to not consider the merits of any opposing argument.
The ALA finds it most offensive for parents to challenge more than one book at a time. A speaker said the first thing to ask a book challenger is, “Have you read all the books you are challenging?” They do not believe that most have read in full the challenged book(s).
You must read the book you are challenging because it makes your complaint more valid.
A sign outside the exhibition hall listed the most challenged books of 2023. All books had the exact same reason for being challenged: “Claimed to be sexually explicit.” Even the extraordinarily explicit “Gender Queer” had that description. It seems the ALA can’t allow itself to say any book is sexually explicit.
Attendees were told to be prepared for citizens who dared question ANY book in their library. I got the feeling after hearing multiple speakers in different sessions, that librarians have a strong sense of ownership when it comes to their book collections. They are to protect their books from the patrons who built and support the library. How dare any citizen march into their library and suggest that a book doesn’t belong in the children’s section.
One of the most important sessions I attended was given by the ALA’s Intellectual Freedom committee. An attorney talked about groups leading book challenges, which made me think that it could get ugly, but I was wrong. The ALA attorney praised conservative groups for having a plan and working the plan. He said these people don’t give up. They keep coming even when meeting obstacles.
Another committee member said, “We were hoping this season of book challenges would be over in a year or two, but this is not going away.” Those who challenge the content of a book or the positioning of a book (adult-content book in the children’s department), need to understand librarians are being told by the ALA that no book challenge is legitimate. Only the books they choose deserve to be on the library shelf.
Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the Director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, spoke in a panel discussion. She is a rockstar among progressive librarians.
Ms. Caldwell-Stone said children should have access to anything in a library. Parents should be the ones to control what a child accesses. Librarians should not be asked to take over the role of parents. A young child should be able to check out a R-rated movie. Librarians have no role in protecting a child from content. To do so would be a violation of the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights.
By the end of the conference, I realized that local librarians are not the problem; rather the American Library Association is the problem. To regain sanity at your local library, I think it wise to discontinue all ALA memberships — organizational and individual. Cutting off the flow of funds will help end the tyranny of this activist organization. Librarians are respected and appreciated by their communities, but this is rapidly changing due to the toxic influence of this small Chicago-based organization. The American Library Association isn’t as nice as its name sounds.