While reading ALA Direct I came across this article about the Greenwich Library in Greenwich, Connecticut. A group called "If Americans Knew" was scheduled to talk at the public library about issues surrounding the media coverage of the Middle East. The group is very critical of Israel and United States media coverage pertaining to the Middle East. The group claims that the media misinforms Americans on what is really going on.
Greenwich Library officials say that they canceled the group's talk because some residents were complaining. Library officials refer to their policy which states "that the meeting should not be considered offensive to public sensitivity." If this condition is not met then the library can refuse the group or persons from using the meeting room. Another concern of the library is that patrons might think the library endorses the group's line of thinking. Also, library officials did some background checking and found that Alison Weir (of the organization) has been controversial in the past.
Some Greenwich residents are outraged that the library has chosen to cancel the talks. Some are concerned that opposing viewpoints of high profile situations will be censored.
I am wondering what some of you think about this situation. I know that my hometown library has a policy in place that stipulates the regulations and conditions of allowing events in their meeting rooms. I know that they do not allow someone to use the room to recruit for business or a political party. They also do not allow churches and the like to recruit as well. I think this is to make sure that patrons are not falsely thinking that the library endorses these parties, groups, etc.
But should the library have banned these particular talks just because a few of the residents complained? If some of the community did not want to hear the talks then they should just stay at home. Don't go. I don't really see a harm in allowing the group to speak. They were not trying to recruit to their organization or sway votes for something. They were only trying to give a different viewpoint to an ongoing problem. Are we not allowed to disagree with the majority anymore?
2 comments:
I'm very disappointed to hear they canceled the talk, and that their policies allowed for it. I understand that the community itself must be kept in mind, but to cancel something because of a few complaints is wrong. What if a church group (non-recruiting) wished to use a library room for a guest speaker (and it's made clear that the library doesn't necessarily condone..blah blah blah). Would they have canceled the speaker if one or two atheists, pagans, or Buddhists complained that a Christian speaker would be allowed at the library? This is very dangerous territory as it sets a precedence that would limit free speech in a public place. Rather than coddling the public, wouldn't it be better to educate them that just because something is happening in the library, doesn't mean it's sponsored by the library? I guess that might just be too difficult to really manage though in our very "me me me" society.
It cuts right to the point of the library's mission within its community. How do we find the balance between regulating and educating our constituencies?
Post a Comment