Library Bill of Rights Revision Discussion
Mark C. Rosenzweig
Janet Hill, 'ALA Council'
Subject: Date: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:32 PM
[alacoun-ro] [alacoun] Re: RE: IF Planned Revisions Size: 20 KB
Priority: Normal
Janet Hill says: "We are all presumably looking forward to a day in which making a list and saying “yes, these people, too, are included” is no longer necessary, because society has finally gotten to the point where all is really understood to mean all, and not to mean “all except …” Looking forward to, but perhaps not really expecting in our lifetimes."
It is because of the fact that we have clearly _not_ gotten to the point in social evolution where the necessity is obviated of enumerating those groups, behaviors and expresions which are illegitimately and invidiously discriminated against, often in ways which are institutionalized and deeply embedded in the accepted structures of life, that we must continue to concretely name and address and, indeed, list, specific cases.
Since the original Library Bill of Rights, noble document that it is, was penned, our country has seen the emergence of many struggles of social groups for fair, humane and equal status and treatmemnt.The document was written before the Civil Rights movement, before the womens' movement and prior to the struggle for gay rights. It is my feeling that Ms Pieper and those who may argue along the same lines, want to turn back the clock to the original letter of the documnet because, to put it bluntlym the wish to deny recognition of the valifity of the issue sthese mobvemnts have raised, thus the call for a "strict interpretation" of the original LBR, stripped of its enendations and interpretations which have addressed these among other changes in our society.What we have here is decidely NOT, as Janet Hill somehow suggests, a philosophical/semantic argument that "all means all" ; it is rather a political one which characterizes all these social struggles for equality and justice as a "laundry list" ( a demeaning term) of "special interests" to whose annoying importunings ALA , as many institutions of American society have "caved in". This runs counter to our association's whole orientation towards diversity, equity, equality, and the fight against prejudice. I believe it is a misreading of the intentions of the present intervention on this iussue of the current revision to ignore that it is based, not on some consideration of some semantic unclarity, but on a stated "sick-and-tired" attitude towards what are insultingly called "spcial interest groups" ostensibly seeking, with no legitimate, basis"special policy /law" .
Mark C. Rosenzweig
ALA Councilor at large
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Hill
Sent: May 19, 2008 11:48 AM
To: 'ALA Council'
Subject: [alacoun] RE: IF Planned Revisions
Thanks to Susan Pieper for clarifying her position.
I am theoretically attracted by a philosophical/semantic argument that says “all means all.” It can be argued that by choosing to create a list of who/what is encompassed by “all”, we may inadvertently find that some group or other either IS, or BELIEVES itself to be excluded. …. And then, when we revise the statements again to include that group, the result is that some other group will arise that NOW believes itself to be excluded (they thought they were included before, but no longer think so).
As a practical matter, however, we (ALA) have felt it necessary to specify who is not to be excluded or discriminated against. Presumably that was because it was clear that not everybody really understood what “all” means. And probably partly because libraries whose boards/communities urged them to limit services/collections for some particular groups felt the need of a statement from ALA that they could point to and say “nope, it says that even THEY are to be included.”
So for me, the questions are:
Now that we have produced an extensive list of who is NOT to be discriminated against, have we reached a point of absurdity? Or have we at least reached the point where we can say “all” and have it understood?
Is there a practical reason (leaving aside theory and semantics) that libraries need to have a statement that includes a list of those not to be excluded?
If such a statement is needed, should it be in an “interpretation” of the statement, or in the statement itself?
Is a statement weaker if it includes a well-selected-and-constructed laundry list, or is it weaker if it is expressed so generally that it needs to be interpreted?
My personal philosophical and semantic preference is for the simple all-encompassing statement. But I’m willing to be convinced by those with more experience in this particular area that such a statement just doesn’t work or doesn’t adequately serve the purpose. Yet. We are all presumably looking forward to a day in which making a list and saying “yes, these people, too, are included” is no longer necessary, because society has finally gotten to the point where all is really understood to mean all, and not to mean “all except …” Looking forward to, but perhaps not really expecting in our lifetimes.
janet swan hill
councilor at large
janet.hill@colorado.edu
*****
Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
- Gustav Mahler
Janet Hill
Subject: Date: Monday, May 19, 2008 12:32 PM
[alacoun-ro] [alacoun] Re: RE: IF Planned Revisions Size: 20 KB
Priority: Normal
Janet Hill says: "We are all presumably looking forward to a day in which making a list and saying “yes, these people, too, are included” is no longer necessary, because society has finally gotten to the point where all is really understood to mean all, and not to mean “all except …” Looking forward to, but perhaps not really expecting in our lifetimes."
It is because of the fact that we have clearly _not_ gotten to the point in social evolution where the necessity is obviated of enumerating those groups, behaviors and expresions which are illegitimately and invidiously discriminated against, often in ways which are institutionalized and deeply embedded in the accepted structures of life, that we must continue to concretely name and address and, indeed, list, specific cases.
Since the original Library Bill of Rights, noble document that it is, was penned, our country has seen the emergence of many struggles of social groups for fair, humane and equal status and treatmemnt.The document was written before the Civil Rights movement, before the womens' movement and prior to the struggle for gay rights. It is my feeling that Ms Pieper and those who may argue along the same lines, want to turn back the clock to the original letter of the documnet because, to put it bluntlym the wish to deny recognition of the valifity of the issue sthese mobvemnts have raised, thus the call for a "strict interpretation" of the original LBR, stripped of its enendations and interpretations which have addressed these among other changes in our society.What we have here is decidely NOT, as Janet Hill somehow suggests, a philosophical/semantic argument that "all means all" ; it is rather a political one which characterizes all these social struggles for equality and justice as a "laundry list" ( a demeaning term) of "special interests" to whose annoying importunings ALA , as many institutions of American society have "caved in". This runs counter to our association's whole orientation towards diversity, equity, equality, and the fight against prejudice. I believe it is a misreading of the intentions of the present intervention on this iussue of the current revision to ignore that it is based, not on some consideration of some semantic unclarity, but on a stated "sick-and-tired" attitude towards what are insultingly called "spcial interest groups" ostensibly seeking, with no legitimate, basis"special policy /law" .
Mark C. Rosenzweig
ALA Councilor at large
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Hill
Sent: May 19, 2008 11:48 AM
To: 'ALA Council'
Subject: [alacoun] RE: IF Planned Revisions
Thanks to Susan Pieper for clarifying her position.
I am theoretically attracted by a philosophical/semantic argument that says “all means all.” It can be argued that by choosing to create a list of who/what is encompassed by “all”, we may inadvertently find that some group or other either IS, or BELIEVES itself to be excluded. …. And then, when we revise the statements again to include that group, the result is that some other group will arise that NOW believes itself to be excluded (they thought they were included before, but no longer think so).
As a practical matter, however, we (ALA) have felt it necessary to specify who is not to be excluded or discriminated against. Presumably that was because it was clear that not everybody really understood what “all” means. And probably partly because libraries whose boards/communities urged them to limit services/collections for some particular groups felt the need of a statement from ALA that they could point to and say “nope, it says that even THEY are to be included.”
So for me, the questions are:
Now that we have produced an extensive list of who is NOT to be discriminated against, have we reached a point of absurdity? Or have we at least reached the point where we can say “all” and have it understood?
Is there a practical reason (leaving aside theory and semantics) that libraries need to have a statement that includes a list of those not to be excluded?
If such a statement is needed, should it be in an “interpretation” of the statement, or in the statement itself?
Is a statement weaker if it includes a well-selected-and-constructed laundry list, or is it weaker if it is expressed so generally that it needs to be interpreted?
My personal philosophical and semantic preference is for the simple all-encompassing statement. But I’m willing to be convinced by those with more experience in this particular area that such a statement just doesn’t work or doesn’t adequately serve the purpose. Yet. We are all presumably looking forward to a day in which making a list and saying “yes, these people, too, are included” is no longer necessary, because society has finally gotten to the point where all is really understood to mean all, and not to mean “all except …” Looking forward to, but perhaps not really expecting in our lifetimes.
janet swan hill
councilor at large
janet.hill@colorado.edu
*****
Tradition is the handing-on of Fire, and not the worship of Ashes.
- Gustav Mahler
posted by Librarian at 7:06 PM
