CTA Doomsday Schedule: Day 2
CTA Service Cuts Start Today
Calumet Fisheries Wins James Beard Award
How To: Roast a Chicken (If You're an Idiot)
30 Percent Chance Of Hailey
Due to the actions of a Chicago-based group, many public libraries are reportedly finding themselves in a precarious position on the topic of reparative therapy - i.e. attempts to de-gay the gay.
Chicago's own Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), a national non-profit organization, has launched itself into a battle against libraries' so-called "banning" of books on successes of the ex-gay movement. The group, who does not believe in a biological root of gayness, has informed FOX News that its donation of books such as "You Don't Have to Be Gay" and "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" have been uniformly rejected. Their requests for help from the American Library Association's intellectual freedom department have allegedly been ignored.
"It's almost an attack on us as an organization merely because we want to allow people to have all the information on both sides," PFOX excecutive director Regina Griggs told the beacon of balance. "We aren't out there forcing people to do anything ... [patrons] have a right to know all of the facts to determine for themselves."
Squabbles over gay books in public libraries, and the First Amendment quandary the controversies create, is far from uncommon. This summer, a neighbor to the north, the West Bend, Wis. public library, faced similar troubles when it refused to discard "gay-affirming" books like "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" and obtain books celebrating ex-gay treatments. One resident suggested the library's director should be "tarred and feathered" for his refusal to relent to the demands.
Most mainstream medical and health groups, including the American Psychological Association, have criticized reparative/conversion therapy as unlikely to work in the long-term, at best, and potentially harmful, at worst.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I sat in a bathroom stall next to an "ex-gay" once, and he actually engaged me in conversation. He had all these nice things to say about his beautiful wife and kids, conservatism and Jesus. The really weird thing was that he kept tapping his foot over in my side of the stall during the whole conversation..... odd. What was that all about?
He was able to "ex-gay" everything but his foot.
Psalm 34:8 -- "Taste and see that the Lord is good."
A well known cruising technique. he was testing the waters -- hoping you would say something inviting. Then, the ex-gay cover would drop immediately. Pretty much shows how effective the ex-gay techniques are.
Wait, the name of the group is PFOX?
They're not even trying to hide it any more over there at Faux news are they?
To be serious, really, this kind of nonsense puts libraries in an awful position. The overwhelming majority of scientific/anthropological and sociological evidence points to homosexuality as being simply a fact of nature. Putting these books into the collection is validating theories that have been discredited, or are simply repackaged religious trifle. Nearly every "ex-gay" story somehow involves coming to Jesus (yes...come to Jesus) or God's magic rainbow happiness making a man not like dick anymore.
At least Mein Kampf has some historical value. This stuff is just nonsense.
I tend to fall on the side of libraries keeping such books, as I think there is social and historical value in acknowledging how stupid we as a people can be. You know, those who don't know their history and all that.
I have a degree in library science, and I could go either way on this one but i lean toward not including them in the collection. There is limited shelf space in any library, so you want books that are going to be useful and relevant. Not putting a book in a collection does not equal censorship. You also want a well rounded collection that represents multiple points of view. These books could present a point of view but if they are inaccurate or lack quality they don't enhance a collection. A librarian has a right to and should assess the quality of any materials being considered for a collection. No library has any obligation to put any donated books into a collection, especially if the quality of those items is subpar. My guess is that these are not the highest quality publications. If someone really desires one of these titles, it is likely that they can be obtain by another institution through interlibrary loan.
The historic value of a book does not justify a place in a public library's collection. There are archives, museums, and other institutions better suited for that.
Very good points. I agree.
PFOX? they can't even be creative with the name.
I do think these books should be placed in libraries though. In the fiction section. Next to L Ron Hubbard or something.
Let's think about the physics section of the library. Should they put books with crackpot physics theories in there? Of course not. The library has a right to reject blatantly erroneous resources
Now think about the gay-related section of the library. Should they put books with crackpot gay-conversion theories in there? Of course not. Again, the library has a right to reject blatantly erroneous resources.
I agree with what Ward Up wrote. Any library has the right to reject erroneous resources, those claiming falsehoods as truths, for example literature denying the Holocaust and these.
I hope people remember these comments about Wardieupsmenship, points where he represents the Chicagoist Majority. But if they do keep these books, they should go right along the Harry Potter section.
I too agree with WU(!) But bad physics won't screw up a confused teenager. This is stinky, poorly conceived and written garbage, easy for us to dismiss, but toxic to a younger person..
http://www.narth.com/docs/excerpt.html
I defy anyone to read the headline and first paragraph and accurately follow who's advocating what.
I would then start reading the second and perhaps advance to the third paragraph--within which things start becoming clear. The links are good resources as well. All contingent on whether you have the time to invest in the story.
My wife is a librarian and we've had this exact discussion before.
Her perspective is that her primary jobs as a librarian are to establish a collection that represents the totality of the community and to put books in the hands of patrons. She thinks these books are idiotic, immoral and wrong, but she would never stand in a patron's way of accessing a book on how to avoid homosexuality, no more than she would stop a questioning teen from reading a book like The Perks of Being a Wallflower. That isn't her job.
The "crackpot theories" argument holds no water with me because a lot of people think religion itself is a crackpot theory. Or that creationism is a crackpot theory. That doesn't mean you get rid of books pertaining to religion or creationism, because that wouldn't be serving the community to do so.
what are the criteria for accepting a book into a collection? Is simply having a point-of-view enough?
this is where i think quality comes in. i do not think it is a librarian's job to "protect" the community from certain types of books. as much as i might personally disagree with books opposing homosexuality, if a book was well written and presented a viewpoint that enhances the collection, i very well may include it. but not every crackpot pamphlet needs to be on the shelf just not like every novel is on a library's shelf (regardless of its quality). a singular branch just doesn't have room for everything.
Without having run this by her, I can confidently say that my wife agrees with everything you just said.
alright, a read of a paragraph or two of one of the above mentioned works should be all it takes to end this round.
I feel like I learned something (no sarcasm) from the above commenters, especially jackson93.
Learning new things is what Chicagoist is all about.