#no platforming

Folks who use and support libraries!

Recently, the American Library Association (ALA) revised their Meeting Rooms: Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. This revision stated that libraries could not turn down hate groups from using our meeting rooms. 

With this move, ALA is literally explicitly protecting hate groups using library spaces. This is a disgrace to our entire profession and it is actively dangerous to library workers and patrons who are of color, immigrants, Muslim, Jewish, disabled, LGBTQ+, or otherwise marginalized making them explicit targets of these groups' violence. 

This revision to meeting room policy is a reflection of deeply intolerant views and if implemented will turn libraries into an unsafe space for millions, and thus would inherently create a barrier to access wherein anyone who was targeted would be unable to access library resources. This is a decision in support of fascists and against diverse communities across the country.

Because of this, librarians and library workers have reacted with outrage and resistance against this decision. 

The hashtag #NoHateALA has emerged on Twitter, and there have been numerous articles and blog posts about how dangerous and misinformed this phrasing is from leftist circles to folks who were literally in the Council and (due to some shady practices wherein someone brought in that phrase without discussion or review right before the vote) were coerced into voting in something horrific. 

ALA has presented an opportunity for this recent revision to be rescinded, but only if the ALA Council votes YES to rescind on Aug 9. The Council is a small number of ALA members, and ALA is only a fraction of the total number of library workers in the United States. This vote is not democratic to library workers more broadly- more like the electoral college where they are supposed to represent our interests, but they ultimately get the vote. 

So to make ourselves heard, we need to make sure Councilors know that we are going to pay attention to how each of them votes (and whether they vote, because the way it’s structured, not voting is essentially equivalent to voting no). 

“The plans will effectively outlaw ‘no-platforming’ movements which seek to shut down events by speakers with whom student activists disagree.”