Marian the Librarian is no more. The American Library Association is the enemy! Here's one solution, and there may be others.
From The Imaginative Conservative
By David Deavel
The intra-conservative battle over
liberal institutions and their relation to
liberalism, classical and
otherwise, got a little hotter when Sohrab Ahmari tweeted about a drag
queen story hour in Sacramento: “If you can’t see why children belong
nowhere near drag, with its currents of transvestic fetishism, we have
nothing to say to each other. We are irreconcilably opposed. There’s no
polite, David French-ian third way around the cultural civil war. The
only way is through.” Dr. French was somewhat surprised that in a debate
at Catholic University Dr. Ahmari kept returning to this phenomenon of
drag queens at the library in a later debate at the Catholic University
of America, suggesting that the answer might be local bans on the
practice. Dr. French’s argument was that to instantiate this kind of ban
is not only unlikely, but could lead to a further evisceration of free
speech that would eliminate the access of religious groups to public
libraries and schools.[1]
I can’t adjudicate the questions about
how to get rid of drag queen story hour, but I will say that it is
actually not the worst part about public libraries these days. The worst
part is that these days you can’t actually take your kids to the
library and simply let them check out books on their own. What we’ve
found over the last few years is that the number of books, videos, and
other kinds of material that are promoting the view of the human person
and sexuality represented by drag queen story hour has grown quite a
bit. And it’s not simply material in the YA or Young Adult section—it’s
the kids’ section. Some of them are quite explicit about what they’re
going for, but many of them bury their themes more than half-way through
the books, such that one has to read through almost the whole book to
find out whether they are going to be dealing with bisexuality, as one
recent book one of our children checked out did.
Sure, one can complain, as my wife did
about that book. But it sometimes seems to do no good at all. The
librarian assured her that the children’s specialist carefully selects
books according to rigorous criteria. Oh, good, said my wife. What are
those? The librarian still hasn’t gotten back to us. We and some of our
friends have taken to going to the library a lot less often since it
takes longer to figure out what’s acceptable for our kids to check out.
So what to do? We want our children to
love books and libraries, but we do not want a library attempting to
convert our children to the gods, usually sexual, of this age. A number
of people have noted that creating a new library takes a lot of
infrastructure and investment. How can we recreate this structure in any
feasible way?
This is what some friends and I were
pondering a couple weeks ago. I mentioned reading a blog post by Rod
Dreher in which he commented that it is difficult to set up an
alternative library system. Was he right? Wouldn’t this involve buying a
building, renovating the space, and getting shelves and all new books?
Such a procedure would be feasible but quite expensive and
time-consuming. Then we realized that there is a way around this that
might take advantage of one of the depressing aspects of our age: the
closing of Catholic elementary schools. Those elementary schools have
the right kind of space and, if they have closed recently, they usually
have book shelves and often a decent collection of books already in
place. (Though given the fetish for following their secular betters so
evident in too many parochial schools, it’s probably a good idea to go
through any collection.)
What we propose to do is raise a bit of
money to clean up the space, add some books (via donations and
purchases), and pay for maintenance of the facility. Our idea is that
perhaps we could get volunteers to staff the library at first, paying
some experts who might be able to advise us on the best way to operate
and set up such an institution. And then when we open, our library—which
one gentleman suggested should be called the Twin Cities Library
Guild—would charge a membership fee. We thought that perhaps one hundred
dollars per family per year for membership would work, though that
could be waived in cases of need. After all, if you want people to
invest in a place, they are more likely to do it if they have
financially invested in it. Though our ad hoc committee is Catholic and
is thinking about using Catholic resources right now, we know that many
Protestants, Orthodox Christians, and people of other faiths and perhaps
none may have an interest in having a space that both protects and
feeds the imaginations and hearts of their children.
That’s the plan as it came about over
coffee and donuts. Our goal, then, is to draw it up a bit more formally
and then approach the pastors of some local closed Catholic schools. My
question for you, dear readers, is what you think of such an idea. The
benefit of writing for a publication such as The Imaginative Conservative is
that the readers are interested in both sides of the title. Many of you
have experience in your own institutions. Lend us your experience and
your imaginations. Have you tried this? What does my ad hoc committee
have wrong? What are we not thinking about? What might help us in
setting up such an institution?
It is said that the hand that rocks the
cradle rules the world. But the hand that stocks the library shelves has
a powerful role as well. While we may not be able to solve the problems
of the public library system, we may be able to provide an alternative.
So what do you think?
The featured image is “Bookshelves” (c. 1725) by Giuseppe Crespi (1665-1747), courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
I think the title of your post is misleading. The article itself did not deliver on what the title implied. Was that on purpose?
ReplyDeleteThat is the title on the original article. I never tamper with titles or content of articles I share. I agree with you, however, and I have no idea if it was intentional.
Delete