Censoring Anti-Censorship

What is the first thing that pops into your mind when you look at this poster? The second? The third? If you answered that it looks like a somewhat corny play on a Do Not Enter sign, or actually read the text and discerned the intent, good for you. If you looked at this poster and the first, second, or third thing to cross your mind was how islamophobic it is to put a woman's eyes in the middle of a book that is clearly meant to symbolize a niqab, then congratulations you are part of the problem.

Thankfully no more than a handful of the audience for this poster, the official graphic for the American Library Association's banned books week event that highlights the ongoing attempts by regressive people to censor books and other information, made the decision to declare this image islamophobic. Nor did those overly sensitive and easily outraged people seem to grasp the irony of demanding the censorship of an anti-censorship image. But what is interesting is that a few busybodies had so little else to do with their time that they went out looking for easy targets to be offended by and pour precious time and energy into demanding that which inspired such outrage be deleted from their sight. Because there are so few real problems in the world and no bigger villains than the professional organization for our librarians. Right? Right?

After more than a week the petition started on Change.org generated fewer than 500 signatures and I consciously waited to write about this issue in order to not draw attention to this pointless and counterproductive undertaking. The petition has since closed and it is unlikely that any pitchforks will appear outside the ALA's offices. However, it is important to make note of a few aspects this non-issue raised for the direness of the situation in America. I recently posted this image to my Facebook page that summarizes that direness.

Any one of the issues here seems like a more worthy target for activism than the supposed islamophobia of a library poster. And there is the crux of the problem, these things are real but so many "activists" concentrate on fringe pet projects that have no real significance. What would be gained on the whole by getting ALA to remove the poster? And by what means? Here is the melodramatic language used by Elizabeth McKinstry in her petition:

This poster uses undeniably Islamophobic imagery of a woman in a niqab, appears to equate Islam with censorship, and muslim women as victims.  It directly contradicts ALA values of inclusivity and equal access by targeting a particular group.
Whether the poster was intentionally or accidentally a racist design, it is still racist and alienating. It should be removed immediately from the ALA Graphics store, and the ALA Graphics Store and Office of Intellectual Freedom should apologize and explain how they will prevent using discriminatory imagery in the future.
Let the ALA leadership and Graphics Store know that this poster violates the ALA Code of Ethics, represents libraries and librarians as discriminatory and non-inclusive, and must be removed immediately.

"Undeniably?" There are quite a few logical fallacies here but the biggest problem with the language is the directness, this is an attempt at domination. 'Remove this thing that offends me, apologize, and swear that you will never publish anything that could possibly be construed as offensive to anyone anywhere.' Not exactly leaving any wiggle room for saving face are you Ma'am? So any acknowledgement of this petition put ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) in a bad situation, either they are insensitive and unresponsive to public concern, or they are appear weak and easily manipulated by anyone with an imagined grievance. By forcing a confrontation over a manufactured "controversy" McKinstry has opened a new front in America's culture wars. Because if a simple Google search is any indication, her tantrum has drawn attention to ALA by all sorts of bad guys and the organization will be spending more of their time (and budget) fending off attacks than assisting the librarians battling censorship at your local library.

That is, after all, OIF's job. To combat the restrictions that all sorts of fundamentalists want to put on your freedom to access information. The self righteous people in churches and board rooms who want to ban all sorts of books really don't need any help from those who should know better and they should concentrate their energies on real problems.

Then again, if you can turn this:

Into this:

Maybe you need to reevaluate your life instead of searching out monsters to destroy.