No Love for “Lovingly Alice” as School District Removes Book

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?

“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”?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Let’s move on
Let’s move on. I am. Bye.