I don't think your understanding is accurate. Their positions are overwhelmingly in support of freedom of information, freedom of speech, privacy, and the public domain. They're opposed to anything that locks down and restricts information, generally oppose unnecessary copyright extension and overbearing copyright laws and rules (including the DMCA and DRM). They have a wide array of positions that are both frequently aligned with and opposed by both major American political parties.
People distort the ALA's position as pushing LGBTQ books on children, but that's just the most in the limelight right now because those are the books that are being challenged the most, and the ALA is generally against book banning.
The ALA is aligned largely with classical liberalism, not modern progressivism, and most American conservatives I knew before 2016 would have agreed with their positions on freedom of information and personal privacy.
> This is a perversion of the phrase "book banning". Choosing not to have certain books in libraries, or in the kids section of libraries, is not "book banning".
Yes it is. It is by the dictionary definition of the two words 'banning' and 'book' to be banning books, from a library. You are wrong.
Yes. But the majority of the community seems to be explicitly against the removal of these text from the library. It is an extremely small and loud group of traditional Catholics whose stance on this is unpopular even among other catholics in the community.
Interesting; other commenters here were blaming evangelicals. I wonder what the evidence is for it being one or the other group, or if people just have their favorite groups to demonize.
The ALA is a ideological organization that advocates for open access to information and resources. Those damn communist, they always want well informed citizens!!
While we're at it someone should really buy out and shut down wikipedia! Have you seen their article on Hitler? They make him sound like a criminal!!
This sounds like a response from someone who is not especially informed about the ALA. I work in a related field and am aware of the policy positions they have taken on lightning rod cultural issues. Perhaps you could look into this before claiming that they just want "open access to information and resources".
If that's the case, then please feel free to inform me of what policy positions they take on lightning rod issues that isn't related to their stated goal of providing open access to the public?
Drag queen story hour wasn't a policy created by the ALA it was a popular program at some libraries.
The ALA did create a collection of resources for Libraries that wanted to host them, but even they are clear that that is a decision made at the local level [0]. You said you were very familiar with the ALA, because you "work in a related field". It might be helpful to actually read their standards and guidelines [1]. Just in case we're talking past each other, this might also be helpful [2]
Of course drag queen story hour isn't a policy — it's an event. And just because the ALA didn't invent it doesn't mean they haven't expressed support for it.
Look, you asked what positions they've taken that aren't related to open access to the public and I answered. Now you're moving the goalposts. That's a game you can play by yourself; I am done playing along.
> Look, you asked what positions they've taken that aren't related to open access to the public and I answered.
These statements contradict.
> And just because the ALA didn't invent it doesn't mean they haven't expressed support for it.
They seemed to support it in the sense they felt they should say something after libraries and librarians were targets of protests and threats. And they seemed to see a connection between calls to ban drag queen story hour and calls to ban LGBT information and resources. I think this is correct.
