Thursday, July 19, 2018

Shatner, Librarians, and Standing. . .

A week or two ago, once again on Facebook, I came across something that just caught my attention. It was basically a series of posts involving William Shatner and the Association for Library Service to Children. Apparently this organization announced that it was changing the name of an annual award it sponsors. Previously, known as the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award, the award will soon be renamed. The renaming stems apparently from passages in Wilder's writing dealing with Native Americans. Wilder is the author of the famous Little House on the Prairie series, which for me at least is better known as the seventies prime-time drama featuring Michael Landon and Melissa Gilbert.

After the Association made the announcement regarding the renaming of the award, Shatner and others protested it gong on Twitter and stating that he found "it disturbing that some take modern opinion and obliterate the past." What followed was an extended back and forth on Twitter involving Shatner and various academics, who it could be said were not all that academic on this occasion. The details can be found on the link below. 

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/william-shatner-defended-laura-ingalls-wilder-twitter-now-hes-being-accused-racism  

My response to all of it is largely. . . Who cares? And I say this with two thoughts in mind. The first is that I am simply not sure how significant this award is. I had never heard of this organization nor this award until I saw these postings. My second thought or point, however, introduces what I believe is a larger issue. It is what I point to as having status or standing and our neglect our disregard for such today. 

To have standing or status is a simple concept: To have status or standing is to be heard or acknowledged. To have standing or status gives one a platform, or allows one to speak, and to be heard. With standing one is recognized or seen. To have standing is then to be seen as a member of a group or organization. In the above case, to have standing or status is to be a member of the Association for Library Service to Children.

The question becomes then what of the relation of such a group to others outside the group. Do those outside the group have standing? Will those outside the group be recognized and / or listened to? Will the opinions of those outside the group be considered? The answer is obvious. The members of the group will decide if they want to consider such opinions. The members of the group decide who has standing. It might very well be that not every member of a group has the right to speak. An example of this is in our high schools and colleges with freshmen, seniors, and sophomores, each with a certain status, a certain location in the pecking order.  

Returning to the question of the person outside of the group, it is the group, or the leadership of the group that typically decides such. And there is no defined method of of arriving at this. Some groups will embrace a solution such as Robert's Rules of Order and vote on the matter, while others such as the American mob or mafia will perhaps embrace bloodshed. The point is that the group ultimately determines who has standing or status, and likewise who does not. In short, they will decide who will be allowed to speak and who will be heard. 

What I state is obvious, yet William Shatner and the Association for Library Service to Children or at least some of its members spent the better part of a week yelling at each other on Twitter. And that trickled into the press and media, and then onto Facebook. In one respect, if the librarians wanted to get their name out there regarding this award and its name change. .  well, mission accomplished. I believe, however, that we have in the process lost something. 

Specifically, we have forgotten what it means to have standing. We no longer respect that someone has standing and likewise that others do not have standing. We no longer accept that some have the right to speak and others not. All before the state have the right to speak, to express their mind, their opinion. This is the concept of free speech. 

No one, however, has the right to commandeer a stage or grab a microphone. One cannot have their position printed and distributed, published, without a publisher's or broadcasters consent. Here again, just as in the private association or group, a person and their words are given standing by the broadcaster and or publisher. We have here migrated from a club or association, perhaps an academic organization, to a newspaper or radio station. In this transition, however, standing is still accepted, and often even respected. 

Today, however, few listen to the radio, and fewer yet read the newspaper. The source of much of our news and information is the internet. Today, we get our news and updates from Facebook and Twitter. I certainly do. This story as I said at the start was courtesy of Facebook. Facebook with its millions of postings, however, does not consider standing. Facebook does not care about such. They basically insure that post are not pornographic, but not much else. They attempt to apply an algorithm where by content is distributed among friends, acquaintances and a mix of others. There is no consideration of standing, of status within private groups. 

On Facebook, that is seen as a good. People, regardless of who they are, and what they believe, are able to engage and share. That is a good. Yet, such a platform in its neglect of standing and status has no respect for a private organization or group. And yes there are numerous "private groups" or pages on Facebook, but I focus here on what trickles through each Facebook and Twitter home page feeds. Here on one's home page, such private entities or groups become suspect, and are required to be transparent - visible to all. Yet, those demanding such are not members of the group or organization. They have no standing in the group. They simply happened to have seen a post and have decided to engage, much like myself. 

Now as amusing as that is, my point here is to point to the tension. Technology today, the Twitters and the Facebooks, have allowed us to forget that there are places where we do not have a say, where we must raise our hand and ask or request to speak. And there is something of value in such places, in such groups. We should not forget that such places do exist and that they are to be valued. The point can be summed up with the fact that the members of such groups have often been engaged in them for years, perhaps decades. They have built something with those organizations in those periods of time, versus our momentary reading of a post. That consideration, that fact, is significant, and should make us pause, it should make us reflect and perhaps research, before we demand to be heard.