No Love for "Lovingly Alice" as School District Removes Book

A Paradise Valley, AZ mother is upset that her daughter was subjected to Lovingly Alice by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor.

"If you looked on the cover, it's just a very young cute girl on the cover," Lockhart said. "My (incoming) second-grader can pick this book up and think, 'This is a cute book.' There needs to be some sort of warning label."

Officials with the Paradise Valley Unified School District have pulled the book from their shelves.

More from AZCentral.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

School Removes Squirting Sperm Book

I write about this topic here:

"School Removes Squirting Sperm Book After 8-Year-Old Complains To Her Mother"

That includes a list of a lot of stories about public school situations I have collected over the years. Here's a recent example: "Most Oppose Explicit Books in Public Schools Says Harris Poll." Imagine that! And the ALA didn't even report it!!

Mover and Shaker Supports Squirting Sperm Book for Kids

A "Mover and Shaker" supports the squirting sperm book for kids:

"PV Schools Skipped Book Procedure," by Ann Dutton Ewbank, The Arizona Republic, 19 May 2011.

Notice "may remain in use" completely negates her argument since the book need not remain in use.  That leaves her simply throwing around her Arizona Library Association presidential weight to attempt to browbeat the school back into line.  It's demagoguery pure and simple.

So skipping the material reconsideration procedure is bad if it keeps kids from reading inappropriate material, but, in Clarkstown, NY, skipping the material reconsideration is good if it keeps kids reading inappropriate material.  And there we have yet another double standard.  The ends justifies the means.

Selective Reading is Selective

"Paradise Valley administrators removed the book "Lovingly Alice" from the Quail Run Elementary School library prior to the initiation of an official book challenge."

So, in this two step timeline:
(1) The book was removed.
(2) THEN the book challenge was initiated.

In case you require additional clarification, Ann's point is that the book was REMOVED before the book challenge was initiated. Whether or not the book may remain on the shelf during that period of time is irrelevant since it was usurped by the actions of an administrator.

You keep use that "demagoguery" word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Wrong timeline

Wrong time line. Here's the time line:

(1) Book with inappropriate content gets into school, possibly due to being on an American Library Association recommended list or being recommended by an ALA source like Booklist or like an ALA librarian.
(2) 8 year old girl gets the book from the school, reads it, gets sexualized by the ALA-engendered experience, then complains to mother of book's inappropriate content.
(3) Mother complains to school, thereby initiating book challenge.
(4) The book was removed by the school, by the principal who was shocked by the contents and the librarian who said it was meant for older children, not by the mother nor the child.
(5) The official book challenge will be initiated next school year per school diretion.

Along comes the former AzLA prez who then spins the facts and demands action in accordance with her spin. She demands the inappropriate book be returned to the children: "District administrators should return the book to the shelves." That's demagoguery. Really, exactly who does she think she is?

People are usually bedazzled by such bravado. No longer. Now everyone knows most people know sexually inappropriate books should not be in public schools. Demands to restore inappropriate books to children are failing more and more often.

The jig is up.

Puttin' on my lollerskates

Is this why you got banned from editing Wikipedia? For letting your conflict of interest impede the objective nature of the online encyclopedia? Because I can see why now.

(1) You keep linking it to ALA. Not every librarian is in ALA nor is every recommended reading list from ALA. Library Journal being one of them; online book bloggers being another. Your eagerness to connect ALA to something like this is making your logic extremely faulty.
(2) "gets sexualized by the ALA-engendered experience" Again with the specious logic and projecting your own viewpoint and agenda.
(3) Complaining doesn't start a book challenge. We both know that there is a process for book reconsideration challenges and the process starts with paperwork. The book was removed before the paperwork was filed. As a lawyer, you should appreciate the difference between when something was said and when something was filed. It's the equivalent of being thrown in jail with a complaint to follow. Due process, anyone?
(4) More emotionally charged statements in lieu of facts. *yawn*
(5) Sounds like a school policy to mean.

Really, you keep using that 'demagoguery' word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or perhaps you do know what it means because you are doing it yourself right now.

Are You There ALA? It's Me, Anonymous

Anonymous,

Your comment reveals extensive knowledge of a matter only ALA OIF acolytes or ALA members or employees themselves would know. Further, the ALA is known to act anonymously to conduct unethical and possibly illegal activity. See, "ALA Pushes Net Neutrality on Wikipedia; Political and Pecuniary Interests Promoted Anonymously by ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom May Violate Ethical and Tax Codes. That story also explains the "banning" you use to mock me in yet another false, ad hominem argument.

Your comment also adds an ALA spin, such as by saying, "Complaining doesn't start a book challenge." Oh yes it does. Does calling the police to advise them of a stolen item mean nothing until the person files an official report? Of course not. The challenge starts when the person complains. They are then directed to fill out the appropriate paperwork, but the challenge has already begun by that point.

Even ALA diktat confirms this: "What should I do if I find something I don’t approve of in the library? Libraries offer a wide range of materials, and not everyone is going to like or approve of everything. If you have a concern, simply ask to speak to a librarian. We do want to know your concerns, and we’re confident we have or can get materials that meet your needs. The library also has a formal review process if you wish to put your concern in writing."

So the challenge starts verbally. "If you wish to put your concern in writing," then "the library also has a formal review process."

Because of all of the above, I am now certain "Anonymous" is connected in some way to the ALA. That puts "Anonymous's" comments in a whole new light.

Anonymous, tell the ALA OIF leadership, if you are not one of them already, I am not intimidated by them in the slightest. Further, I'm working to educate communities about the ALA's misleading tactics. Slowly, it's working.

"The book was removed before the paperwork was filed. As a lawyer, you should appreciate the difference between when something was said and when something was filed. It's the equivalent of being thrown in jail with a complaint to follow. Due process, anyone?" That's more demagoguery. In reality, the paperwork is secondary to a verbal complaint, and the ALA diktat I quoted proves that.

So due process concerns have been satisfied--indeed the school will be going the extra step next school year. The book's removal "before the paperwork was filed" is irrelevant. The school gets to follow it own rules, not the ALA diktat. And it's pure diktat to say the children must remain exposed to material the school already determined is inappropriate and removed, as was the case here. Who died and made the ALA (or the Arizona Library Association in this particular case) ruler of school communities?

lollerskates

I think the permanent Wikipedia banning is a relevant factor here as it presents evidence that you have a history of bias against the ALA, its members, and its mission. As you are someone who wishes for everyone to have all the facts when making book decisions (generally a code phrase muddying debate), why are you so opposed to having it known that you are someone who was warned multiple times about Wikipedia edits (and editing wars) on the ALA, Banned Books Week, Judith Krug, Jessamyn West, Camile Alire, and censorship?

People can read this all for themselves and make their own decisions, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

We can disagree as to what starts a book complaint. In every library I know of, they do not simply take a customer's word as gospel and pull a book on that basis. There is a formal process that starts with a written complaint so that the book can be examined on the basis of those points, not what people remember hearing someone say. Your 'calling the police' analogy is completely false since not every call to the police results in someone being arrested, ticketed, or otherwise reprimanded. Nice try, but you struck out swinging.

You even quote something that controverts your argument: ""If you wish to put your concern in writing," then "the library also has a formal review process."" Sounds like saying, "If you really want to challenge the book, you are going to have to do it in writing." Pretty much just like the rest of country: put it in writing! If every library changed policy based on verbal customer complaints, our policy manual would be written on dry erase board.

Your evidence for me being a member of ALA is pretty threadbare, pal. Although, that reminds me that I do need to get my robes pressed so I can meet up with the other Death Eaters later today. We're going to be reading Harry Potter books to kids at Bible study groups.

You really should explained the "get sexualized" comment. What does that even mean?

"Beratis," "Kesla," "Redjac"

Anonymous OIF ALA leader,

Thank you for confirming a sore spot with the ALA. The ALA attempts to convince communities that children must remain exposed to inappropriate material schools would otherwise remove. The ALA uses it own self-generated claim that a formal materials reconsideration request must be filed and completed before any book may be removed. That is just plain false, as this latest Phoenix matter shows. It's diktat. It's demagoguery. You, Anonymous OIF ALA leader, have confirmed that with your repeated efforts to promote that very point, again and again.

It's also the way you promote that false idea. You use personal attack to do so. You make false claims of my "banning," my "history of bias against the ALA, its members, and its mission," my using "code phrases," my "edit warring" as if I was literally in battle and not explaining what it truly means. Then you specify a link solely about me after making your false accusations. I disclosed that very link myself, so thanks for publicizing it further. "The district does not tolerate verbal, written or defamatory comments or actions that target specific individuals or groups." Apparently, you do, just to try to make your point. Such ad hominem argument illustrates the weakness of your efforts to mislead that community.

It's also the way you try to frame the debate to win it merely by stating it with your spin. "We can disagree as to what starts a book complaint." No, we cannot. A book complaint starts when someone complains. That's why it's called a book complaint. That's why that ALA page I cited says it starts when someone complains. You will have to change that page's language if you want it to say something else.

It's also the way the ALA sets up communities for failure. Here you are trying to convince people challenges do not start until someone files a materials reconsideration policy. When they do file such complaints, the ALA labels each and every person who does so as a censor. In other words, as soon as a written challenge is filed, that challenger is belittled by the ALA tactic, evident in your remarks, Anonymous OIF ALA leader, of attacking and ridiculing the person bringing the complaint. 100% of the time. The ALA literally sets up people for ridicule, leads the chorus of guffaws, and uses "Banned Books Week" to maximize the broadcasting of that ridicule.

It's also the way you twist the argument into something even I would agree is wrong, but you say I favor it, that you argue against it in a manner that belittles me. You said, "If every library changed policy based on verbal customer complaints, our policy manual would be written on dry erase board." I agree with that. But that is not what I was saying. Anonymous OIF ALA leader, you simply set up a straw man argument, then knocked me down for something I did not say. So besides ad hominem argument, you also use the straw man argument. I smell the desperation.

The truth is, school leaders are entitled to remove inappropriate material from public schools forthwith, without being straightjacketed by some out-of-town, anything goes organization that's high on itself. And it's perfectly legal to do so. The school's decision to remove the book immediately then give it a thorough going over is perfectly acceptable, and the ALA or the AzLA will not be able to browbeat the community into restoring the book they removed. Ah, it feels so good to see the ALA OIF losing its grip over communities.

As to the Death Eaters you mentioned, I like them. I would think something from Star Trek would be more appropriate. Perhaps "Beratis," "Kesla," "Redjac"?

lollerskating has given way to the LOLLERCOASTER

You're accusing me of framing the argument and yet you have defined me as an ALA OIF acolyte/minion/leader on the basis of... nothing. There's a claim that I had insider knowledge when I read the same article you did and came to a different conclusion. This reads a lot like your illusions of persecution in your Wikipedia talk page, so at least I know it is a well documented psychosis. I don't think newspapers would be so eager to quote someone who has paranoid delusions.

I can't say why I'm talking about you, though, since this isn't about you. And yet you have steered it that way in order to paint yourself as a victim of a conspiracy seeking to silence you. Indeed, I can confirm to you that funds that have been raised for libraries are being diverted to silence some guy in New Jersey with an internet connection and way too much free time. It's just like Enemy of the State except that you're not Will Smith, I'm not Gene Hackman, and there is no one out to get out.

A book complaint starts when they sign on the dotted line. Period. End of discussion. There is no such thing as a verbal complaint. You sign, the process starts. Anything short of that is dodging the process. If during the book reconsideration the administration removes the book (pending the outcome), that's their business. If they leave it on the shelf, that's their business as well. But it starts with a WRITTEN complaint.

100% of the time? Bring me the proof of this. I want to see that happen in all of the hundreds of challenges that happen every year. And don't link spam a few, I want a 100%. That means every. single. one. It's ok, you can back out of that hyperbole all you want because you can't prove it. You can't. I understand that this makes you emotional and prone to making statements that cannot be proven. I won't take that into account for the rest of your reply.

I'm still waiting on an explanation of the "get sexualized" comment. Just answer me that. What does it mean? Come on, I'm dying with curiosity. What does it mean? Just explain it so the good people who read this site can understand what you mean.

Doubling down on personal attack to hide ease of book removal

What you are doing is doubling down on personal attack. The false smears. The straw man arguments. The words you put in my mouth. The capitalized, mocking titles. They are all a diversion.

The diversion is to cover up your repeated desperate attempt to claim book challenges only begin when written and not when they actually begin, efforts to restore inappropriate material to a school, and efforts to hide the ease with which schools may remove inappropriate material. The purpose of doing this diversion, this false setting of terms, is to then argue, as you have, as the AzLA former prez has, that there's a violation of "due process" and, therefore, the inappropriate material must be restored to the children, and no other school should dare not follow the ALA's proscribed remedy.

Um, no. The school heard a verbal complaint about the book. That's when the book was challenged. As I quoted the ALA, even the ALA admits that when the challenge begins.

Then, thanks to Board of Education v. Pico, the school is perfectly within its rights, in the right circumstances, to remove the book forthwith. That means immediately. Now I cannot read minds, but I'll hazard a guess the right circumstances arose in this squirting sperm book for an 8 year old. And as I pointed out in another link, most people are on the side of common sense.

The ALA's creation of the material reconsideration process does not negate Board of Education v. Pico, common sense, or community standards. I can tell from your repeated personal attacks and false statements that you are desperately trying to cover up this simple fact. You do not want other communities to realize they can remove books, at will, under the right circumstances, without having to wait for the purposefully drawn out process of the materials reconsideration procedure.

Heck even the ALA's own Judith Krug said so in "Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week," by Judith Krug, Curriculum Review, 46:1, Sep. 2006. Quoting her:

"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there."

Get it out of there. Judith Krug said that. And that's what the Quail Run Elementary School did.

The school was perfectly within its rights to do what it did. People like you and the AzLA prez who say otherwise are demagogues.

And as to the ALA ridiculing 100% of the people who file materials reconsideration requests? Simply read what I reported the whole way through. I did not make up what the ALA said. It dug its own grave. I merely reported what the ALA said.

Say, what did you mean by "Indeed, I can confirm to you that funds that have been raised for libraries are being diverted to silence some guy in New Jersey with an internet connection and way too much free time"? That was kind of out of the blue. Please explain.

LOLLERCOASTER!

I'm so happy that you used the Judith Krug quotation. It's just another example of how you cherry pick quotations and manipulate facts. You offer incomplete records and remove context just to make your points. Sad, really.

The entire quote:

"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there. But materials that adhere to the material selection statement that every school has, and that have been duly selected, we would fight alongside every librarian and every teacher to keep the books available."

Wow, look at how the quote changes right before the reader's eyes! The context! It's blinding! As this was a book chosen under the material selection statement, then I guess it is worthy of

Speaking of quoting out of context, here's what the Supreme Court held in Board of Ed v Pico:

"[N]othing in our decision today affects in any way the discretion of a local school board to choose books to add to the libraries of their schools. Because we are concerned in this case with the suppression of ideas, our holding today affects only the discretion to remove books. In brief, we hold that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to 'prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.' Such purposes stand inescapably condemned by our precedents." Justice Brennan, in the majority opinion. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0853_ZO.html)

Still like that Supreme Court case?

I thought you were against book removals. Don't you want the book to be proven as wrong for school libraries? Wouldn't you want a process in which school officials examine a book then reject it for the collection? The method you are so strongly advocating for just leaves people thinking that a couple of zealots grabbed the book off the shelf for no good reason. Are you afraid of the material reconsideration process? If you are right, then what do you have to fear? You have no faith in the process; you just want what you want when you want it on the basis of your own moral compass, other people's opinions be damned.

The book challenge starts on paper. Unless you have a weird theory that saying "I'm going to sue you!" counts as process of service for a lawsuit. (Which it doesn't in case you are rusty on your civil procedure.)

Oh, and the tally so far:

(1) You still have to explain "get sexualized" and what it means.
(2) You still have to prove that there is a 100% ridicule for every book challenge.
(3) Oh, hell, prove how I am some minion of ALA. I kinda like that one. It makes me laugh.

If you're not going to answer my questions from repeated posts, why would I feel compelled to explain any of my statements to you? Quid pro quo!

Your favorite color

Okay. At this point I am no longer certain you are who I thought you are since the ALA leader I had in mind is not stupid. Your quotes you cited do not support the assertions you made. In the Krug quote, you added the sentence about material that meets or surpasses the school's selection policy. That's nice, but the part I quoted was Krug speaking about books that did *not* meet the selection policy. So I left nothing out that contradicts my assertion, as you assert. I'll admit that a squirting sperm book for an 8 year old that shocked the principal and that caused the librarian to move it to an older grade was assumed by me not to meet the school's selection policy. I'll bet that's a safe bet. It has nothing to do with my moral compass, as you put it.

And that's the problem with your next false assertion, the one about Pico. Yes, I concede what you quoted is accurate. However, disliking the ideas in the book was not the issue in Phoenix, AZ. It was not rejected for homosexuality, witchcraft, political reasons, or because the Earth could not possibly be older than 6,000 years. Rather, it was the pervasive vulgarity or otherwise being educationally unsuitable that is likely the issue, as Pico discussed. Indeed, such a book was removed in the Pico matter and the Court did not compel its return to the library, like it did with the books having ideas in them. Actually, the parties stipulated it was correctly removed, or something substantially similar. And no, inappropriate sexual material for children has nothing to do with "ideas" the Pico protected.

So your assertions about my cherry picking and manipulating facts are false and merely continue on your path of attacking the messenger instead of addressing the issue. More diversion.

Here is a legitimate issue you could have raised, if it were true, and I do not know: the squirting sperm incident was a single sentence in the book, so the book is not pervasively vulgar and should not have been removed. That's a legitimate concern. But you do not raise such legitimate issues. Instead, you are narrowly focused on me personally.

I am against book removals. At the same time, while irrelevant in any community other than my own, I favor book removals where such removals are those as described by Judith Krug or as permitted by Pico. Indeed, I counsel a lot of people, even internationally now, on a variety of issues, and I advise them to consider the Pico case and the Krug quote, among other legitimate sources. I feel there may be a slight reduction in book challenges as a result of my advice as some people have chosen not to bring challenges after speaking with me.

By the way, the ALA's claims about the pervasiveness of book challenges and the issues involved are false, and I have cold, hard proof. I will make that proof available in my own good time. It will be irrefutable, as people will be able to hear it for themselves and make their own conclusions. I'll simply be the messenger. Every last person I have told about this has been shocked that the ALA would be so dishonest when it simply could have told the truth and still made a point. Consider subscribing to my blog so you'll see and hear the disclosure as soon as it is made. It's free and it's anonymous, your favorite color.

so i see we've moved to the ROFLCOPTER

Double standards. You have them.

You complain about personal attacks and then launch into them as soon as someone disagrees with you. The move after that is to claim victimhood and painting yourself as the underdog, the smaller guy standing up to The Man. Finally, you claim victory where there is none. It's easier to claim victory when you ignore your opponent on the field since playing the game means risking a loss. And your ego could not handle one.

You can't bring yourself to quote entire passages of the quotes that you say support your case because the full context reveals them as having a new meaning. There's no trickery to "adding lines". Your hamfisted attempts reveal that you'll do anything to prove how right you are. You can say that ALA uses trickery and subterfuge to get results, but you are right along with them with your own fear mongering and deceit. Your arguments can't stand on their own so you manipulate and skew everything to serve your purpose. It is sad, really.

And now comes the term 'pervasively vulgar', the 'card carrying' phrase equivalent to book challenge language. This coverall phrase might as well just say, "This book has sex things in it and I don't like it." It's vague on the point of being absurd while being emotionally charged so as to illicit the reaction that you want out of uninformed followers. It is a phrase that doesn't conjure up rational thinking but instead facilitates disgust and the closing of one's mind to the material. It is the language that the right wing uses to close down debate and tell people, "Shut up, I'm here to protect the children, even though I vote against social welfare and assistance programs otherwise."

Cold hard proof? A messenger? Something that you will reveal in your own time? Better hurry up and reveal it before October 21st. You wouldn't want to be Raptured with that knowledge now would you? Since you still haven't answered my previous questions, then I'm not worried about when you will reveal this 'revelation'.

Tripling down

Now you triple down on personal ridicule. Indeed, each of the titles of your posts are about laughing out loud at the messenger. Personalizing, freezing, and attacking the target is a well known technique of those seeking to hide something, and you do it in spades.

That said, you actually addressed a substantive issue for a change. Let's look at it:

And now comes the term 'pervasively vulgar', the 'card carrying' phrase equivalent to book challenge language. This coverall phrase might as well just say, "This book has sex things in it and I don't like it." It's vague on the point of being absurd while being emotionally charged so as to illicit the reaction that you want out of uninformed followers. It is a phrase that doesn't conjure up rational thinking but instead facilitates disgust and the closing of one's mind to the material. It is the language that the right wing uses to close down debate and tell people, "Shut up, I'm here to protect the children, even though I vote against social welfare and assistance programs otherwise."

If it is so "vague on the point of being absurd," if it "doesn't conjure up rational thinking but instead facilitates disgust and the closing of one's mind to the material," if it is "language that the right wing uses to close down debate and tell people, 'Shut up...,'" then why did the Pico case discuss it? Was the Pico Court "absurd," "irrational," "right wing," telling people to "shut up"? You are simply using more demagoguery to try to convince people Pico is of little value. It ain't gonna work.

And what does "right wing" have to do with this? Nothing. More demagoguery. The "left wing" opposes inappropriate material for children just as much as the "right wing." Here's an example: "Young Adult Fiction: Wild Things," by Naomi Wolf, The New York Times, 12 March 2006.

So you finally get to a substantive issue, but your arguments are essentially that the Pico Court was a right wing, irrational group of absurd people trying to shut people up. And the right wing comment isn't even true. That's your substantive argument.

The fact remains, schools have the legal basis needed to remove inappropriate materials forthwith without the need to first undergo the long, drawn out process of the result of filing a written materials reconsideration request as the American Library Association recommends.

The fact remains, the Phoenix school removed a book forthwith after determining the book was "shocking" and that it should have been moved to an older grade. The school removed it, not the mother, not the 8 year old who reported the book to her mother, neither of the latter having the power to do so.

The fact remains, people who try to use demagoguery to force communities to re-expose their children to materials the community already determined was inappropriate are losing their ability to mislead communities as people are wising up to the false arguments. And I am happy if I had anything to do with advising communities, such as about the ALA's Judith Krug's quote, which I'll say again, given your effort to discredit my use of this quote:

"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there."

The fact remains, you are arguing to restore the squirting sperm book to the 8 year old child.

Now we know why you wish to remain anonymous.

the ROFLCOPTER goes LOL LOL LOL

"Now we know why you wish to remain anonymous."

Who is we? You like this "us versus them" mentality. You thrive on it. "It's me versus the ALA! I'm just one guy taking on an entire organization!" It is rather amusing since the ALA is a big enough organization to not give a damn. One reference in one presentation and you are over the moon thinking you are on an enemies list. The ALA is big enough to not care about their membership, so why would they care about you? Answer: they don't. You're not even a blip on the radar.

'Pervasively vulgar' is a terms used by book censors (like yourself) for when they want to make a book challenge without actual substance. You can't say it's pornographic because it's not. You can't call it smut because it's not. You say it's 'pervasively vulgar'. It's an attempt to summon up the exemptions of Pico for a book removal to move forward without a review. You just want the book to be removed without the book challenge process because your reasoning wouldn't hold up to actual scrutiny. Just admit it because it's really holding up the conversation here. You can say you're not a censor because the book is available from other places, but you want to control the reading content for other children on the basis of your own morality. You want to stunt debate because then you would have to actually defend your position. It is just easier to say it is "pervasively vulgar" and hope that other people don't notice what you are trying to do.

With the Judith Krug quote, you don't use the whole thing. You take it out of the context it is given and remove the part that says that books that have been chosen by the guidelines of the school should be fought for. You are being completely intellectually dishonest by leaving it out there. That is being completely deceptive.

"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there. But materials that adhere to the material selection statement that every school has, and that have been duly selected, we would fight alongside every librarian and every teacher to keep the books available."

Why so much deceit? You can't argue the merits of your position? Are you afraid of open and honest debate?

I am noticing that my questions still aren't being answered. This is a typical SafeLibraries tactic, right? When challenged on something, ignore the question and raise others. You make accusations and yet won't explain them. (But you sure like to type "squirting sperm". Why is that?)

I'd think that you were using your time while you were reading my reply to come up with actual answers to my questions, but I doubt it. You were probably just thinking "which SafeLibraries propaganda can I link to now?" So I await your inevitable non-answer full of personal accusations, persecution psychosis laden speech, and more twisting of words and statements to your own end. This is why your 'movement' hasn't taken off. People online are drawn to authenticity and integrity. In taking shortcuts with facts and figures, you undermine your own efforts. But I'm guessing you're so wrapped up in being right that there isn't any other path, is there?

You you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you

You you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you. I counted 40 you/yours in that last diatribe. It is apparent the personal attacks continue. It is apparent the weak substantive arguments that do exist are simply repeated, only more forcefully and with more "yous."

This issue has absolutely nothing to do with me. Zero. It was the school that decided the book was inappropriate for children. It was the school that removed the book. It was the school's actions that were completely appropriate and legally founded. It was that school's children who benefited by that school acting on behalf of that school's children. It was that community's newspaper that spoke out in favor of the mother who brought the book to the school's attention:

Is banning a book the best response?

No. And we'll give Lockhart credit that she isn't pushing for that.

She says the book is appropriate for sixth-graders but not fourth-graders. The school should require parental permission before younger students check out the book, she said.

Such nuance is rare in the battle over books and ideas.

Most crusaders simply want to keep all children from reading a book they find inappropriate for their child. That is always going too far.

Having not read the book, we can't say whether we agree with Lockhart's analysis.

But it's a good place to begin a conversation about this book and the tension between what children want to read and parents want them to see.

"Before Banning, Let's Discuss 'Lovingly Alice,'" by Editorial, The Arizona Republic, 23 May 2011.

Read that again. I saw Lockhart, school, parental permission, it's a good place to begin a conversation about this book, what children want to read and parents want them to see, not you you you you you you you you you you, etc. I saw the local media saying it's good to have a conversation about that book, and not saying the school was violating due process and the book must be returned to the students immediately.

In other words, the local community, including the media, supports what the school has done. In contrast, the former AzLA prez does not. She is out of the mainstream. Apparently, she is of the "anything goes" mindset.

So who here is speaking more in line with the community in Arizona, SafeLibraries or Anonymous?

yes, it's always been about you you you you you you you you you

I'm still awaiting the answers to my questions. Why can't you answer them?

Is it because they are toss away accusations? Is it because they are emotionally charged buzzwords in order to rile people up without doing their own investigation? You can't make a case on the facts, can you? Instead you divert, misdirect, and just embody the deceit of people who want books removed because they don't like them. You can't handle the book challenge process because you fear losing, even as you lose your integrity to assault and frame the reputations of any librarian who stands up for the book. You complain about people being villified by the ALA, but you have zero qualms about doing it yourself. Through blog posts, through letters, through phone calls, you attack each and every librarian who DARES to say that a book should stay. You've become what you hate in others.

Have you no shame, sir?

Go on. Explain what "get sexualized" means. I await your non-answer.

Schools may legally remove inappropriate materials forthwith

I think what we have here from Anonymous is a perfect example of the following:

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When you 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.

"Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals," by Saul D. Alinsky, Random House, 1971, pp.127-134.

That is what Anonymous is doing. She is targeting me as a scapegoat, following the guidance of Saul Alinsky. "Scapegoating is very simple, and very malevolent. It is the defining feature of human destructiveness. All the truly irrational actions in human history involve displaced rage. Pathological societies in the world are always torn by a search for new scapegoats."

And, again, here is what she is trying to hide:

It was the school that decided the squirting sperm book was inappropriate for 8 year old children. It was the school that removed the book. It was the school's actions that were completely appropriate and legally founded. It was that school's children who benefited by that school acting on behalf of that school's children. It was that community's newspaper that spoke out in favor of the mother who brought the book to the school's attention.

Schools have the legal basis needed to remove inappropriate materials forthwith without the need to first undergo the long, drawn out process of the result of filing a written materials reconsideration request as the American Library Association recommends.

The Phoenix school removed a book forthwith after determining the book was "shocking" and that it should have been moved to an older grade. The school removed it, not the mother, not the 8 year old who reported the book to her mother, neither of the latter having the power to do so.

People who try to use demagoguery to force communities to re-expose their children to materials the community already determined was inappropriate are losing their ability to mislead communities as people are wising up to the false arguments.

Remember the ALA leader Judith Krug's quote:

On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there.

Case closed.

SafeLibraries: Still Wrong After All These Posts

Remember Judith Krug's full quote:

"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there. But materials that adhere to the material selection statement that every school has, and that have been duly selected, we would fight alongside every librarian and every teacher to keep the books available."

Oh, look, it's about you again. You're not a scapegoat. You're a dishonest party to a conversation about a book challenge. You put out half-quotes, half truths, and half-baked arguments about why a book should be removed. "Pervasively vulgar", a buzzword for book removers who believe their own morality trumps the rest of their communities. Book challenges start when a verbal complaint comes in? Nonsense. I want to go to your local library and complain about every single book on their shelves in that case. Based on your logic, I will have started a challenge that will compel them to remove the book. I'll even quote you on it. And you claim expertise in book challenges?

I don't see a denial about your prior harassment campaigns against librarians who are involved with book challenges. I'm glad we can agree on something.

Still waiting on the "get sexualized" explanation, even though I will never get an answer because it is something you can't explain. You just tossed it out there to provide an emotional charge.

SafeLibraries - Is your logic safe with someone who ignores it?

Monty Python

Anonymous, tell me how leaving out "But materials that adhere to the material selection statement that every school has, and that have been duly selected, we would fight alongside every librarian and every teacher to keep the books available" is dishonest.

See that word "but"? That's a Monty Python word. It means, "and now for something completely different." You see, the part I quoted dealt with books that do not meet selection policies. Judging by the reaction of the principal and the librarian to remove the book, it seems fairly clear the book does not meet the selection policy, so it was removed. On the other hand, the part of the quote you quoted is about materials that do meet the selection policy. That is not the facts of this case. The facts are the principal was "shocked" and the librarian said it should be moved to an older grade. Besides, no kidding books that meet selection policies should not be removed. Krug stating the obvious is not noteworthy. What's noteworthy is her saying if the book does not meet selection policy, get it out of there. She did not say to leave it there until a formal challenge is filed and the entire process completed.

And get it out of there is exactly what the school did.

The relevancy of this matter is that schools may remove materials that do not meet book selection policies right away, as the school here did. You, on the other hand, are essentially arguing that no book may ever be removed until a rather long process that could take many months finally grinds to a halt.

In other words, you are attempting to force your view on the school by claiming what they did violates "due process" and the book should be returned to the children immediately until such time as "due process" has finally been exhausted.

As Dan Gerstein said:

The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry "Censorship!" the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others.

Exactly. What you are doing illustrates this perfectly.

And as to your claim that "Book challenges start when a verbal complaint comes in? Nonsense." I'll remind the readers here that I quoted and linked to the ALA documentation stating essentially that, that challenges start when made verbally, and written ones are an available option. Besides, it makes common sense that a book challenge starts when a person challenges a book. Yes, it may be proper to ask the person to complete a materials reconsideration form, but the mere asking of the person to do this is itself in response to a book challenge that has already been made.

I know a number of people who have read how you have demagogued on this issue and attacked me relentlessly. Each one of them is amazed at how wrong you are. Here's a sample comment: "A lot to read but you nail her every time. Haaaaaaa." I urge you to reconsider your statements here. I suggest you apologize, explain you just had a bad day, like MSNBC's Ed Schultz's calling Laura Ingraham a "sl u t," then move on to another issue. You've lost this one.

As Laura Ingraham said, "The more vile the thing that's said about me, the less it effects me." Dittos, as if you have not already noticed.

And what a coincidence. It is Laura Ingraham who talks about "But Monkeys," and it appears you are one too, only in reverse, based on your ignoring the "but" in Krug's quotation.

Lastly, you said, "I don't see a denial about your prior harassment campaigns against librarians who are involved with book challenges. I'm glad we can agree on something." Would you please point out to me specific instances of "harassment campaigns against librarians"? Pointing out that a librarian admitted in a New Jersey Education Association that she refuses to read the racy books and leaves her students to review them ( see http://tinyurl.com/DeeVenuto ) is merely reporting what she already published. It's not harassment. I'm allowed to report on what I see, am I not? Further, the school removed the book involved because it contained, among other things, an image of two people engaged in anal sex and two Boy Scouts looking on. The school was perfectly entitled to remove the book. No harassment was involved from the school or from me. I'll will admit I heard her speak about her experience and she reported activity I would agree was at least bordering on harassment, but it had nothing to do with me.

Tell me, that book involved in that matter became #9 on the ALA's latest list of the top 10 most challenged books. Tell me how many times that book was challenged so as to make it into position #9 on the list.

SafeLibraries: Still Safely Wrong

And around and around we go. Where it stop nobody knows!

Oh wait, it always seems to stop on you. Right.

I'm still waiting on your answers to questions posed waaaaaaay back in this thread. But if answers were water then a person debating you would die of thirst. You just go back to the same half quotes, the same demonizing logic, and the same rhetoric. It makes me feel like I'm carrying the argument because you are just copy/pasting your end of it.

I like how you say that you don't harass and then bring up a case where you have harassed someone as an example about how you don't harass people. That's a good one. Next time, I'd suggest a flat denial rather than opening up a can of worms and then calling it spaghetti. Stay classy, SafeLibraries.

And really, don't lecture me about imposing viewpoints on other people. That's just tacky considering you have built a website dedicated to doing just that. You can call it "community standards", but I know what it is: intellectual repression. In the bastion of democracy that is the public library, you represent moral fascism.

Still waiting on the explanation of "getting sexualized"... Or will i just die of thirst?

Let's move on

Let's move on. I am. Bye.

And the world will never know

No answers, just dogma.

Just like always.

"gets sexualized by the

"gets sexualized by the ALA-engendered experience"

What does this mean?

Anonymous, why are you anonymous?

You are obviously very familiar with the library profession and you espouse the ALA party line. It's the same sad, old, knee-jerk, left-wing diatribe we've come to know and expect out of Chicago. But that's not really the issue. The issue is, why are you anonymous? Why are you hiding?

Says another Anonymous who sounds a LOT like SafeLibraries

"he same sad, old, knee-jerk, left-wing diatribe we've come to know and expect out of Chicago. "... Sigh.

Of course, that could be a different troll. They come in all shapes and sizes around here. I was so pleased that the back-and-forth was down to one word per line...making it wholly unreadable, which is the whole point.

Walt

Walt, that other Anonymous was not me. Obviously I have no problem speaking up for myself or revealing my identity. And Walt, I hope you are not implying that I or either Anonymous is a troll. Are we all not allowed to speak here on the topic raised in the blog post? Have we not done that? Doesn't LISNews have a comment section for this very purpose? Compare with the ALA's OIF Blog that does not allow comments or removes them if a technicality allows them.

What is the benefit you think accrues from commenting here simply to add more ad hominem argument?

It's amazing how self-arrogated free speech advocates so easy devolve to personal attack to intimidate people into shutting up or to get others to close their minds.

Poetry in motion

I'd say it is starting to look like an e.e. cummings poem. Given the number of times that SafeLibraries has written "squirting sperm", it's ironically appropriate.

Allowed? Intimidate? Ad hominem?

Classic, Dan. Who ever said trolls weren't allowed? LISNews would be much less, um, interesting without the trolls who inhabit it. Who ever tried to "intimidate" people? Certainly not me. (Intimidate? Walt Crawford? Yep, just like ALA sends Truth Squads out to threaten public libraries with de-accreditation if they deviate from the party line, a scenario that happens not to exist in the fact-based world.)

Actually, I beg your pardon. I temporarily forgot the key rules: Don't feed the trolls, and don't bother arguing with "SafeLibraries." Neither activity is remotely instructive.

Credit to Walt

I give you credit, Walt, for using your name.

Post your comment below. Now fortified with cuddly kittens!

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <img> <b> <strike> <del> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Syndicate content