I found an article about an event that happened early in May but raises interesting questions about free speech at public libraries:
The article concerns a public library dealing with protestors who were protesting the library's hosting a speech by former 1960's anti-war activists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn. They were part of the group Weather Underground and have been labeled as terrorists because their group bombed empty offices at the U.S. Capitol and Pentagon in the 70's. Ayers was especially a controversial figure during Obama's campaign, as Obama's opposition tried to link the two and characterize them as "pals."
The couple, Ayers and Dhorn, are on a national book tour promoting their book "Race Course: Against White Supremacy." According to the article, The Enoch Pratt Free Library were going to host the couple and were already receiving protests about the event. The library handled the response well, saying that they "welcome them [protestors] as well, as long as they are not disruptive to our patrons and to the program, they are welcome to sit in and participate in the program." They also state, "We don't have to judge whoever the author is, or whatever their background is. We believe that is what our patrons can do."
The controversy over the speech reminds me of the protest against Obama's speech at Notre Dame that made headlines. However, in this case, the issue is with a library, not a university, inviting a controversial person to speak. And when it comes to censorship issues, there is much attention given to how librarians handle challenges to books but not to speakers. But as the Enoch case shows, speakers at libraries can cause just as much opposition, and maybe even more since a speaking event would be well-publicized.
That Enoch Pratt library is willing to host a controvesial author is admirable, but I wonder how many public libraries would do the same. This makes me think of the article, "A Dirty Little Secret: Self-Censorship," in which librarians are censoring themselves by not choosing controversial materials. I wonder how often this happens at public libraries and whether libraries should establish policies for hosting authors/speakers so that they are not being biased in their selection. And if a library hosts an author/speaker with a controversial viewpoint, should the library then host a speaker/author with the opposing viewpoint? For example, I know of a library that did a display for Gay and Lesbian Pride Month but then also featured a "family" dispay the next month to show balance. Should the same happen with featured speakers/authors? These are just some of the questions with regards to handling intellectual freedom issues when it comes to speakers/authors/events/programs featured at the library.
Thoughtful post, Lisa! My brain went immediately to the connection between self-censorship and hosting and I have to think that we need to use the same standards in "developing" our "collection" of speakers or programs as we do our collection. I agree with you!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, in regards to programs and speakers, I think we find ourselves too often lacking in time and money to plan their development as thoughtfully as we do our information collections.
What a great response to the protesters, that really reinforces that everyone has the right to their opinion. I agree that programming has the same sort of responsibility as collection development. Thank you for sharing!
ReplyDeleteLisa,
ReplyDeleteThis shows courage on this library's part to host controversial speakers. However, it probably would be wise to host a speaker later on who would provide the opposing viewpoint.
Roger Barnes