![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 26th, 2022 10:05 amUnpopular opinion: the Read Banned Books/celebration of banned books/etc. framing that the ALA and library culture in general seems to be leaning into is not helpful.
Like, it's fine for blue states, I guess. (The one time I lived in a blue state for a few years, I was living in the red part of the state, so I don't have experience with this sort of thing.)
But it absolutely does not work in red states. It leans into the snobby liberal elitist stereotype and is off-putting to anyone who isn't on your team. And what sucks about it that there is a perfectly good alternate approach:
Freedom to read
Frame your anti-censorship position as promoting intellectual freedom, freedom of ideas, pushing back against the ability for some people to tell others what they are able to read, and you immediately have a much, much more legitimate perspective that could actually reach some people who aren't already on your side.
Obviously, there will be plenty of people this won't reach. But if the local public library is like, "You [and your child] should be able to read whatever you want [your child] to read without some other person telling you you can't. You wouldn't want another parent making that choice for your child, would you?" some people will go, "Huh. That's a decent point."
I literally do not understand why the ALA doesn't get this, unless the entire leadership is people who have only ever lived/served in blue states.
Like, it's fine for blue states, I guess. (The one time I lived in a blue state for a few years, I was living in the red part of the state, so I don't have experience with this sort of thing.)
But it absolutely does not work in red states. It leans into the snobby liberal elitist stereotype and is off-putting to anyone who isn't on your team. And what sucks about it that there is a perfectly good alternate approach:
Freedom to read
Frame your anti-censorship position as promoting intellectual freedom, freedom of ideas, pushing back against the ability for some people to tell others what they are able to read, and you immediately have a much, much more legitimate perspective that could actually reach some people who aren't already on your side.
Obviously, there will be plenty of people this won't reach. But if the local public library is like, "You [and your child] should be able to read whatever you want [your child] to read without some other person telling you you can't. You wouldn't want another parent making that choice for your child, would you?" some people will go, "Huh. That's a decent point."
I literally do not understand why the ALA doesn't get this, unless the entire leadership is people who have only ever lived/served in blue states.
