All I Have Learned, I Learned From Books

Delores Oates has a friend that is ready to rally to her defense, and that’s really nice to see. It’s just a shame that in addition to not actually providing any evidence to support their claims, they instead turn to more lies, hidden in what my granddaddy would call “a whole lotta words about nothing” regarding Lincoln. If we peer through the smoke screen, we can find gems like:

“… Lazy writers have taken to alleging financial misconduct against my good friend Delores Oates and her campaign manager.” Firstly, lacking any substantive merit, disgruntled friends of Delores Oates have decided that supply and demand are the reasons that Delores Oates paid Mr. Hinnant to be a political “consultant for the Republican primary race” (NVDaily, 7/3/2023) – not a campaign manager. The average salary per year for this area (not Northern Virginia) is about $50,000 per year (ZipRecruiter). Four months of work at that price would be about 16k, not 20k.

Mrs. Oates certainly has the right to pay whomever she likes, whatever she likes within the confines of the law. The rest of us have a right to be critical of the circumstances surrounding it, the price tag involved with it, and the actions of both her political consultant and her own immediately following it. He started a campaign to ban LGBTQ+ books, and she wrote a two-page essay supporting their stances to remove them and oust Samuels Public Library Trustees. But we’ll come back to that.

“At present, the proposal is simply to remove them from the children’s section.” Whose proposal, Devon Downes? Two of the Board of Supervisors members are asking books be removed: Jay Butler by his own reconsideration forms and Delores Oates with her essay. Maybe Devon means Clean Up Samuels? That’s strange, considering absolutely no one in the first 500+ reconsideration forms asked for books to be removed from a section; they asked that books be removed from the entire library; that is when they weren’t asking for them to be burned, at least. As the definition of a ban is to “officially or legally prohibit,” what would you call removing almost 150 LGBTQ+ books from public library circulation?

Maybe they mean Samuels Public Library’s decision to move young adult books to their own section outside the “children’s” section? Perhaps Devon Downs can enlighten us on how that was anyone’s idea other than the library’s. What has Delores Oates herself already had to say about it? I’m happy to remind you.

From her essay: “Pornographic literature was found in the young adult section, and 134 books were determined to be very inappropriate.” There are two more lies – there were NO pornographic materials found because there are NO pornographic materials at Samuels Public Library. That is a FACT. No books were “determined” inappropriate by any actual authority in the matter. One could easily argue even the requesters themselves did not “determine” them inappropriate, as over 90% of those requesting admitted they did not even read the books.

Another excerpt from her essay: “I support the removal of pornographic literature and severing ties with the ALA so we can have a new collection policy …” Maybe her friends can help here too. Does she mean the pornographic literature that does not exist, or does she mean the books people are requesting be removed? She never once mentions anything about another section; did she just forget to write that part?

Also, from Delores Oates: “The current library board, with one exception, has proven they are not suited for the task and should be replaced by new members …” Is this the statement of someone who is satisfied merely by the library moving books to another section? It doesn’t sound that way to me.

Clean Up Samuels, the Board of Supervisors members acting to support them, and their friends can try to change the narrative all they like to save face, but the facts can’t be easily changed. They want LGBTQ+ books removed, and since the porn angle isn’t working, now they’re just claiming they want them in their own section. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you try to sugar-coat it. Like all the new fuss about wanting to consider 3rd party management – it’s just the latest head on the hydra.

By the way, if any of Mrs. Oates’s other friends had thought to read that MOA they like to talk about, they’d know 3rd party management was not recommended after a lengthy study on the subject. In the end, they’re all just looking for another way to control the library so they can force everyone to pretend LGBTQ+ people and sex, in any form (even educational) doesn’t exist. To hell with every other parent who supports LGBTQ+ literature, who supports age-appropriate sexual education materials, who supports their right to parent their own children … in this case, literally.

Along with Lincoln’s famous “All I have learned, I learned from books” quote, I’d like to leave you another favorite: “My best friend is a man who will get me a book I ain’t read.” I think we know which side of this debate Honest Abe would fall on.

M. Christopher
Warren County

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.