Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The women is clearly deeply racist and has no place in an institution of higher learning. [/i]
True, but much more disturbing than one racist librarian is seeing Library Journal, apparently the most widely circulated library-related magazine, promote her on Twitter to 200,000 followers (post now deleted), which indicates that her views are well within the Overton window for people in her profession.
Quote:
Distraught individuals reading Library Journal's Twitter post quickly began drowning the indignant tweet with commensurate outrage. Library Journal responded to the negative feedback two days later by retweeting a meme with the word "Trash!" and a comment by another Twitter user that states, "How wow are people triggered by the fact that white authors and content take up too much space and librarians want to make room for more diverse collections by removing some of those titles... Shocker: librarians throw away books. I weed, gleefully." The retweet indicating that Library Journal supports and encourages librarians to trash, throw away, literary publications written by Caucasian authors.
You know it's kind of annoying to see this stuff interjected into so many discussions, right? if you want to discuss abolishing public libraries, and the rest of the government, start another thread please.
But it's the central point here. That's what you folks don't understand and/or refuse to confront.
MIT, along with all "public" institutions/those that receive guv funding, do not conduct their business based on market demand/merit but on "public policy" through the government.
If MIT or any other welfare-receiving outlet want to run their library based on anti-White sentiment let them do it in the free market and see how long they last.
Personally, I don't know how you even begin to digest literature in regards to any discipline if you exclude white men (because based on merit the contributions are bountiful and paramount). My gut tells me this nonsense would be eradicated in the blink of an eye if we took my approach on these matters.
I mean, as a minority, I'm quite sure white folks aren't the devil as these fools propagate every single day across academia, the corporate world, and in politics. However, the stories are increasing. Why? It's because when you agree to a system of equal outcomes as opposed to one of equal opportunities your hands are tied when the SJWs decide to run these games.
The only path to a moral, logical and merit-based society is to embrace unfettered capitalism.
Think about it: two astronomy students and only one can read about Copernicus because he was white. Well, we got one guy going with the earth being the center of the universe while the other has the sun as the center (as Copernicus first formulated).
Things go in opposite directions from there, in a capitalist society, if you ask me.
But it's the central point here. That's what you folks don't understand and/or refuse to confront.
MIT, along with all "public" institutions/those that receive guv funding, do not conduct their business based on market demand/merit but on "public policy" through the government.
"The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is a private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded in 1861 in response to the increasing industrialization of the United States, MIT adopted a European polytechnic university model and stressed laboratory instruction in applied science and engineering.
…
"MIT is chartered as a non-profit organization and is owned and governed by a privately appointed board of trustees known as the MIT Corporation.[148]"
(My emphasis - more @ the URL)
MIT is likely unique among US universities - they or their students have founded & spun off whole industries. I assume that some of that money accrues to MIT - certainly they don't seem to be hurting for funding. & MIT does a lot of research - government, military, science & technology - as well as furthering their impressive assortment of clients & business partnerships they've formed over the years, especially since the 1940s & continuing up to today.
"The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is a private research university in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Founded in 1861 in response to the increasing industrialization of the United States, MIT adopted a European polytechnic university model and stressed laboratory instruction in applied science and engineering.
…
"MIT is chartered as a non-profit organization and is owned and governed by a privately appointed board of trustees known as the MIT Corporation.[148]"
(My emphasis - more @ the URL)
MIT is likely unique among US universities - they or their students have founded & spun off whole industries. I assume that some of that money accrues to MIT - certainly they don't seem to be hurting for funding. & MIT does a lot of research - government, military, science & technology - as well as furthering their impressive assortment of clients & business partnerships they've formed over the years, especially since the 1940s & continuing up to today.
66% of "campus research support" comes from my pocket.
The university would not exist without research and development. I like this part though...
Quote:
This budget sketch does call for the Department of Defense, the primary funder of Lincoln Lab and the source of 18% of our campus research support, to receive a 10% budget increase. But the blueprint’s DOD section offers little detail and makes no mention of research. We are left to guess that this might result in no change or a slight increase to current DOD research funding on campus, and a possible increase in funding for Lincoln Lab.
I'm sure glad MIT will continue to get my money to accelerate the slaughter of innocents around the globe through the DOD.
Abolish, privatize, let the market decide. It's that simple.
Oh I would love to see where this goes............
Why don't we just segregate libraries by race.
I have a funny feeling the libraries are going to be a bit lopsided.
Assimilate or Disintegrate!
Libraries, Racism, Books?
Holy SHT! How far off the rails can people go?
The only ones trying to burn books, remove history, are progressives. Last time I checked they are filled with self-loathing white skinned wannabe black, OMG I wish I was black, people.
The university would not exist without research and development. I like this part though...
I'm sure glad MIT will continue to get my money to accelerate the slaughter of innocents around the globe through the DOD.
Abolish, privatize, let the market decide. It's that simple.
Yes, the US opted decades ago (in the runup to WWII?) to let the military drive cutting-edge technology. I don't know that it was conscious then, but that's been the default position ever since big science projects (nuclear weapons, long-range heavy bombers, aircraft carriers, ICBMs, computers, etc.) have become the norm.
As for Abolish, privatize, let the market - I think it's much too late for that for the US. That's the worldview of President Thomas Jefferson, more or less - rely on a sturdy yeomanry (small farmers, small business) to keep the country on track. Hamilton won that struggle, & handily. Unless you want the US to become one of those tiny Balkanized countries that worries constantly @ its history & yearns for their long-past glory days?
Library Journal, founded in 1876 by the inventor of the Dewey Decimal System, is the leading journal for professional librarians in the English speaking world. Six hours ago, it tweeted out this from Sofia Leung, a librarian at MIT:
Maybe they were written by people "of color" and stolen by white men!!! The hatred of whites is disgusting, just as hatred of the successful rich is, and neither diminishes the white/rich or advances the critics.
BTW, white supremacy is a myth. Asians, (with their average IQ of 105, compared to 100 for whites) are the truly superior race. Truth be told.
I don't usually post without reading an entire thread, but I just...I can't. Sorry if I'm repeating anything.
If you want to look at who is at the fore of protecting library resources, it's library professionals. I know, 'cause I am one. No library professional worth her salt would ever advocate for a widespread purging along color lines. What is true is that our physical resources are not growing--and if they are, it's at a much slower rate than previous. We do have more and more available digitally, and that is, without a doubt, a more diverse collection. I would not argue the fact that our physical collection is largely representing white males. So, what we have is a collection that, if it were to stop today and be held in a time capsule, would tell the story that we valued the work and ideas of white men above all others. Now, that's not going to happen, is it? But it is the sort of thought that those who develop collections have. Are there works that are "missing" from our collections by women or people of color that would represent the very best option of an idea? Absolutely. Without a doubt. So, library professionals will always ponder what this means and how to deal with it when we have limited space, resources, and time.
Here's something along the same line that is discussed a LOT: Should a major collection of Holocaust literature (not primary sources) include works that are authored by Holocaust deniers or anti-Semetic authors? We're always asking questions like this. And the answer is "yes," for a whole variety of reasons.
I don't usually post without reading an entire thread, but I just...I can't. Sorry if I'm repeating anything.
If you want to look at who is at the fore of protecting library resources, it's library professionals. I know, 'cause I am one. No library professional worth her salt would ever advocate for a widespread purging along color lines.
"Weeding" is the preferred term at the Library Journal, "gleeful" weeding.
Quote:
What is true is that our physical resources are not growing--and if they are, it's at a much slower rate than previous. We do have more and more available digitally, and that is, without a doubt, a more diverse collection. I would not argue the fact that our physical collection is largely representing white males. So, what we have is a collection that, if it were to stop today and be held in a time capsule, would tell the story that we valued the work and ideas of white men above all others.
Why do you see ideas and literary works, products of human intellect, as "representing" the race and sex of the author? Is this identity politics mindset pervasive now among librarians? Do you realize how unconvincing arguments based in this kind of thinking are to the unindoctrinated?
Quote:
Now, that's not going to happen, is it? But it is the sort of thought that those who develop collections have. Are there works that are "missing" from our collections by women or people of color that would represent the very best option of an idea? Absolutely. Without a doubt. So, library professionals will always ponder what this means and how to deal with it when we have limited space, resources, and time.
If a work is the "very best option of an idea", then obviously it should be included in your collection if at all possible. The author's color and sex are trivial considerations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MIT is hardly typical in any event
