ALA 2022: Friday Recap

First, because people have asked, the Washington Convention Center itself and the ALA Annual Conference are requiring masks. There was concern about this. 

Now on to what I did yesterday.

My ALA began Friday morning with a lovely event, the Booklist Reviewers Meetup. This was a casual event and was just like is sounds, a chance for those of us who review for Booklist to gather informally and catch up. Normally, I would not add this to my report, but I am doing it because my afternoon induced rage [and that was without taking the Supreme Court, only a mile away, into consideration]. I wanted to have something positive in this post sand this event brought joy.

I spent most of the day [1-4pm] at a free pre-conference sponsored by United for Libraries [UfL] entitled, "The ABC's of Preserving Intellectual Freedom: Anticipating, Bridging, and Conversing." I attended with my colleague Kristi Chadwick who is a Consultant with the Massachusetts Library System, but some of you may also know her as the SF/F Columnist for LJ [she also co-chaired StokerCon Librarians' Day in Providence with me]. As a Trustee, I am a member of United for Libraries, but I was also interested in this program as someone who trains Trustees.

The two women running the pre-conference are crisis communication experts who work with libraries through UfL and ALA. 

It all started off okay with the Anticipating portion of the ABCs. They advise you too:

• Know your library's selection and reconsideration policies and how to find them.
• Monitor local social media and news
• Anticipate easy and difficult responses ahead of time.
• Practice with colleagues and friends to feel comfortable with your messaging points.

This is actually advice my Board has used as troubling events have unfolded around us at other libraries and our high school board. For example, we saw the comment portion of the high school board meetings getting out of control and started instituting the same procedures they do: the board does not respond to any comments at the meeting, only those who live in the service area may speak [other can submit written comments only], for example.

This is advice is excellent. Don't think you are safe where you live. People trying to stop you from offering materials or services are in every community. I have already written extensively about being prepared and Kelly Jensen's excellent coverage on this difficult topic here.

I want to get to the rage inducing part because it was also an eye opener to a lot of the problem Robin and see when we do our training programs and I think, while this made me [and Robin from afar] mad, it might be a turning point in our work.

That rage inducing part was the "B" in their ABC: Bridging

The idea of “Bridging," is how we move from listening to a complaint and turn the conversation toward the message we want to tell. So after someone says [and this is a tame example]. “You need to remove your Pride display from the teen room because it is inappropriate,” you are supposed to use a bridging phrase that turns the tables but center being kind and placating them.

Here are some they suggest: “I respect your views. May I give you another perspective…” or  “We share your concern for the children. Our approach is…”

First of all, I do not respect this opinion and I do not share their concern for our children. Saying we should use those words is enraging and gives their hate power. I won’t do that. 

So I challenged the two [white] women presenters and raised my hand to say, “As a Jewish woman, I will not tell a Nazi who comes to the library and wants to reserve the meeting room that I respect their opinion. Saying that causes me personal harm.” 

Their response: That is fair, chose different words.

But no, I told them, it is harmful to tell marginalized people to respect the opinion of those who think you are less of a human than they are. 

They would not engage with this point.

I texted with Robin about this after the event and she gave me permission to share her thoughts. One statement she made— “It is always about obedience with theses people.”

But here is the main point Robin and I discussed— It is easy for these well meaning white ladies to tell us that we have to lead with civility at all costs, because it is NEVER them on the receiving end. It is always attacks again Blacks [coded as CRT] or LGBTQ or Jewish or Muslim etc…. Not white hetero ladies. They never use examples that include them

Robin suggests if we want to make the majority cis, white, hetero profession feel what we feel this should be the example of the problematic patron:

“I think it should be legal for any incel man to have sex with any woman he fancies. Including your daughter. Including you.”

Now, she said, I want to ask those presenters, can you say you “respect” those views. OF COURSE NOT.

Look the main point here is that we need to STOP using examples that tell OTHER people how to react when they are being demeaned and told they are less than human.  

We need to have the message that we will stand up to bullies, not try to placate them. They have been emboldened to keep using their hate because we are unwilling to stop them. Our “civility” has allowed them to keep marching onward. They are using our unwillingness to engage against us. Our LGTBQ books are being checked out en mass by an organized effort, using our own tendencies and procedures against us.

This is everything that is wrong with our responses to challenges. But what I learned by this program that was supposed to help us to be better at preserving Intellectual Freedom is that everything we are telling people to do is making it all worse. 

We need to tell people with harmful opinions that they are wrong. We need to calmly stand up to them, not listen to them tell us that others are less human. 

As my colleague Kristi said at the end of the day, “Their advice was…. [and she thought about the word for a moment]….neutral.” Yes it was Kristi. And readers here know how I feel about that.

Robin and I will be taking what I learned into consideration as we strengthen our our Actively Anti-Racist Service to Leisure Readers— a program many already deemed “to confrontational” as is it. Well, they have seen nothing yet.

—-Deep Breath——because there is a bit more anger coming, although not as much.

Finally, I attended the Opening Session which featured a conversation between ALA President Patty Wong and FCC Chairperson Jessica Rosenworcel. There was a lot of conversation about things like E-Rate and the Emergency Connectivity Fund, programs that the FCC funds in order to help close the digital divide. And top be clear, Rosenworcel has done quite a bit in her long government career to try to get broadband to all. 

Of course, in ALA style, the conversation was peppered with “happy” stories and even some interview clips with library workers, showing how in terrible situations, libraries worked above and beyond to make sure their patrons got internet access, especially students, so they could get their homework done.

Great, but here is the elephant in the room, the one no one mentioned. Broadband should be a public utility— full stop. 

It is embarrassing that libraries have to scramble to help their community have access to broadband. The ALA has issued a statement confirming that access to high speed internet is a human right. The FCC chairwoman agrees, and yet, we have a system of complicated grant programs that people need to jump through hoops to get money to help their citizens access a “human right.”

Let me put this more simply. Would the room have been nodding along at these “uplifting” stories if they were about libraries helping their communities get access to electricity? No, we would be applaud if this complicated patchwork system was required for the lights to be on. And yet, for broadband we think this is okay. Well at this point, not having access to  affordable or reliable broadband is a detriment to your life as a 21st Century American, the same as not having electricity would be. 

I wish there was a chance to ask questions because THAT is what we should be talking about. We can talk all day about the feel good stories of how the FCC helps close the digital divide, but you know what would bridge it forever? Making broadband a public utility. That is what we should be fighting for, not another grant program that requires mountains of paperwork. 

This is indicative of the entire problem with library advocacy in general. We are too afraid to ask the big ask. We don’t want to cause a stink. We want the feel good stories of helping at the local level, but when we do that, we hurt the cause for all. ALA should be demanding— not asking— the FCC to make broadband a public utility. We can thank them for the grants as a stop gap measure, but we should keep on them— relentlessly— until we fix the problem for good.

Well, that’s all for Friday. Saturday looks to be less rage inducing. But I will say, I am here to be challenged and reckon with the nuance and problems within our profession so that as a Library Leader I can help bring about real change. 

Onward!