The Vermont Library Association recently published a release titled “Vermont Library Association Statement on Critical Race Theory” (CRT). There are some good things in it, but having been written by some progressive stooge with Left-Wing narrative tunnel vision, there is plenty with which to make sport.
The gist is that blocking CRT “restricts or impedes any education on Racism, “Divisive” Concepts, Racial Injustice, Black American History, and Diversity Education in libraries and educational institutions.”
VLA is committed to upholding intellectual freedom in all of our libraries: Public Libraries, School Libraries, Special Libraries, and Academic Libraries. People must be able to access information without censorship and without fear that their intellectual inquiries are illegal. It is only through the vigorous upholding of freedoms of speech and inquiry that we can truly be a democratic nation that strives not only to understand its history, but to learn and become better from it.
I agree. Intellectual freedom is important, as is having as many views or versions of every topic. It is, therefore, critically important that the library includes titles that explain and show how Critical Race Theory teaches racism.
White students in classrooms where CRT is permitted are labeled with the original white sin of racism for things neither they nor their parents, grandparents, or perhaps anyone in their family ever played a part—a sin for which CRT does not permit them to be forgiven. I hope the VLA is committed to protecting intellectual freedom and diversity on this point.
We also assume that because CRT targets white Western civilization absent the context of the even longer and more brutal history of black-on-black slavery, VLA members make a point of having material that balances these historical facts against those offered by Critical Race Theory literature.
We know that CRT is divisive because it is racist. It is not anti-racist; it is not racial justice. It is racism. Anyone truly interested in history should have unlimited access to material that explain this.
The Library Statement has other issues. The author(s) note that Critical thinking and civil discourse for all points of view must be protected and encouraged in a democracy. Bravo, except that we do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional Republic.
The words democracy or democratic appears four times in the few hundred words of their statement. Nowhere is it used in a proper context.
There is also a line of support for the American Library Association’s Statement on Book Censorship. It, too, has some very lofty and admirable goals.
We are committed to defending the constitutional rights of all individuals, of all ages, to use the resources and services of libraries. We champion and defend the freedom to speak, the freedom to publish, and the freedom to read, as promised by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
We stand opposed to censorship and any effort to coerce belief, suppress opinion, or punish those whose expression does not conform to what is deemed to be orthodox in history, politics, or belief. The unfettered exchange of ideas is essential to the preservation of a free and democratic society.
The freedom to read is something to which we can all agree and aspire, and I look forward to hearing how library associations and librarians are fighting for that freedom online, where unpopular opinions or speakers are often blocked, deleted, and filtered without any presumption that this metering of content is censorship or banning. I get a sense that this commitment lacks visibility when the topics or speakers diverge from what can only be described as a partisan progressive interpretation.
The VLA and the American Library Association could do much to address the question of their increasingly apparent viewpoint discrimination by objecting to this virtual equivalency of online book burning.
We should also note that while the VLA and other libraries and associations claim to hold a commitment to securing access to as many titles, authors, and opinions as possible, the absence of such material or public objection to content that is not age appropriate is not book-banning or censorship. Titles of authors readily available through a book store or bookseller, bricks and mortar or online, and whose purchase is not prohibited by law are not banned or censored.
Perhaps a statement of clarity on this fact would clear the air and affirm to everyone that you are not misleading or misinforming the public or aiding and abetting those who use terms like censorship and book banning to partisan advantage while censoring or banning opposing opinions on racism, sex, gender, abortion, climate, and a host of other pressing matters.
