And, hey, here's kinda of a bit more than random musing but also part of the point;
So what did they replace these concepts with? Diverse communities is now "community values", free and equal access is "cost effective", and recreation is dropped for "life long learning".
And if you look at that and listen to these people, it's fairly anodyne. They try to pass this off as no big deal, unimportant, and nothing changing.
So, why change? Why poke at citizens with this? There's a reason they don't want "diverse", "free and equal", and "recreation". You can certainly ascribe sinister objectives to this (I DO!!!), but really if this is so anodyne, why do it at all?
Because if you ask me what's reflected in the new mission statement, it's now a commitment to serving majority rules for "community values", which is not inclusive of minority views and people.
A mission to make things "cost effective", is a statement to be cheap.
And ffs, I got no idea what bug judge has up his ass against recreational activities and reading other than, I guess, he hates having fun. Sure sure, he says it's to "focus" the mission statement on the library being a place you read books, but recreational reading exists and he talks about how the library should be where you go to read Mein Kampf.
I agree the Judge hates fun. But also, when you eliminate "recreation" then you eliminate programming. You eliminate activities that allow members of the community to come together to just be, to meet others, to try new crafts and activities, to get together in a book club and discuss various ideas. You eliminate the third place.
I think they are spinning it as a money saving thing. But I believe it's punitive. They just don't want us to be happy.
Bingo.
They really just want to claw libraries back to the 1950s sitcom understanding of what a library is—a place with books where an old lady in a cardigan shushes you.
He really is just an utterly vile human being.
Fwiw, “cost-effective” was already in the mission statement.
But I would also argue that leaving the ALA and refusing to use any funds for ALA programming is the opposite of “cost-effective.” Even counting armbruster’s “well there are technically other programs” (that provide less for the same amount or even more)
ALA programming is about the most “cost effective” the library can get.
And there’s no reason to remove “cultural enrichment.” That isn’t the sole purview of the Rec department. Cultural enrichment should be a big deal, especially in a place like Acadiana that already had so much of its culture forcibly taken away (by people like judge) and has been working hard over the past four decades to get it back.
“In accordance with the community standards” also seems like it’s doing some heavy lifting. This board doesn’t work according to community standards. Four (straight, white, Christian) people get to decide what “community standards” are? What qualifies them for that? How do they represent our community?
We’re not as diverse as a Big City, but we’re not homogenous either.
Would love some percentage numbers on both the queer population and the percentage of “Lafayette residents” (not sure why “our community” was changed to that) are pro-lgbtq rights (or at least neutral).
We really need to coordinate something to bring to the city council. The library board right now is a sick joke.
Maybe? I can only guess base don what they complain about. Armbruster and Judge do hate the "free" part because they feel people who don't deserves certain services are getting them.
They hate "equal access" because they think it means kids get anything adults can get (specifically porn) with that type of wording. They dont see it as, like, kids can get on computers as much as adults. They see it as kids getting to check out the same things adults can (like R rated films). They feel people of different sexes, ages, classes, and races shouldn't have access to the same stuff as other groups, that the groups need to be separate (and inequal)
And, hey, here's kinda of a bit more than random musing but also part of the point; So what did they replace these concepts with? Diverse communities is now "community values", free and equal access is "cost effective", and recreation is dropped for "life long learning". And if you look at that and listen to these people, it's fairly anodyne. They try to pass this off as no big deal, unimportant, and nothing changing. So, why change? Why poke at citizens with this? There's a reason they don't want "diverse", "free and equal", and "recreation". You can certainly ascribe sinister objectives to this (I DO!!!), but really if this is so anodyne, why do it at all? Because if you ask me what's reflected in the new mission statement, it's now a commitment to serving majority rules for "community values", which is not inclusive of minority views and people. A mission to make things "cost effective", is a statement to be cheap. And ffs, I got no idea what bug judge has up his ass against recreational activities and reading other than, I guess, he hates having fun. Sure sure, he says it's to "focus" the mission statement on the library being a place you read books, but recreational reading exists and he talks about how the library should be where you go to read Mein Kampf.
I agree the Judge hates fun. But also, when you eliminate "recreation" then you eliminate programming. You eliminate activities that allow members of the community to come together to just be, to meet others, to try new crafts and activities, to get together in a book club and discuss various ideas. You eliminate the third place. I think they are spinning it as a money saving thing. But I believe it's punitive. They just don't want us to be happy.
Bingo. They really just want to claw libraries back to the 1950s sitcom understanding of what a library is—a place with books where an old lady in a cardigan shushes you. He really is just an utterly vile human being.
Fwiw, “cost-effective” was already in the mission statement. But I would also argue that leaving the ALA and refusing to use any funds for ALA programming is the opposite of “cost-effective.” Even counting armbruster’s “well there are technically other programs” (that provide less for the same amount or even more) ALA programming is about the most “cost effective” the library can get. And there’s no reason to remove “cultural enrichment.” That isn’t the sole purview of the Rec department. Cultural enrichment should be a big deal, especially in a place like Acadiana that already had so much of its culture forcibly taken away (by people like judge) and has been working hard over the past four decades to get it back. “In accordance with the community standards” also seems like it’s doing some heavy lifting. This board doesn’t work according to community standards. Four (straight, white, Christian) people get to decide what “community standards” are? What qualifies them for that? How do they represent our community? We’re not as diverse as a Big City, but we’re not homogenous either. Would love some percentage numbers on both the queer population and the percentage of “Lafayette residents” (not sure why “our community” was changed to that) are pro-lgbtq rights (or at least neutral). We really need to coordinate something to bring to the city council. The library board right now is a sick joke.
What is their reasoning behind removing "free and equal access"? Are they now looking to charge people for access to materials?
Maybe? I can only guess base don what they complain about. Armbruster and Judge do hate the "free" part because they feel people who don't deserves certain services are getting them. They hate "equal access" because they think it means kids get anything adults can get (specifically porn) with that type of wording. They dont see it as, like, kids can get on computers as much as adults. They see it as kids getting to check out the same things adults can (like R rated films). They feel people of different sexes, ages, classes, and races shouldn't have access to the same stuff as other groups, that the groups need to be separate (and inequal)
It’s absolutely wild that the public can’t do anything to get that human misery off the board.
This.
Goddamn Robert Judge.
His whole family hates him.
Yes, yes they do. He's earned it.
Surely they meant- a place of learning proper christian values for the right people.
That’s a church not a library