Viewpoint Discrimination and Compromise

Ms. Dixie Dillon Lane has made a reasonable point about legal constraints and compromises with regard to a path forward concerning the Samuels Library, Inc. (SLI) controversy.

About constraints: While accepting what she points out at face value, I would like to focus attention on the phrase “– specifically because they contain LGBTQ themes or support LGBTQ beliefs or behaviors –. “  This is known as viewpoint discrimination. In my opinion, it should be clear to anyone that looks into the Cleanup Samuels Library (CSL) website that pornography primarily, and the sexualization of juveniles in general, are the objects of its focus.

I agree with Mr. Walker of the SLI Board of Trustees, and I believe CSL supporters also agree with him that no sexualization of any sort should be in the juvenile section of the library. By definition, anything within the LGBTQ realm is about sexuality. If it is an inconvenient fact that all or a great majority of books identified CSL for removal because of pornographic content also containing LGBTQ themes, that is an insufficient basis to conclude viewpoint discrimination. It simply means the library apparently doesn’t have books containing heterosexual pornographic content. If anyone can produce a juvenile book in Samuels that contains heterosexual pornographic content and ascertain that it was intentionally passed over by CSL, there may be a case for viewpoint discrimination. Otherwise, this is simply not substantiated.

About compromise: With respect to compromises, let us examine what is known to date: On July 10, the SLI Trustees voted not to even MOVE two books with sexualized content from the juvenile section, whereas the CSL position was to REMOVE them from the library. To Ms. Dillon’s point, a viewpoint discrimination claim would aim to threaten some level of legal jeopardy associated with removing the books, but moving them apparently does not, as evidenced by the decision to move one of the three books voted on by the Trustees on July 10. SLI appears to be the uncompromising party. If you are familiar with the poop metaphor: SLI trustees voted to move 1/3 of the poop from the brownie mix into a separate bowl. Is that a meaningful compromise? I don’t think so, and I don’t think most people would see it that way.  The meaningful compromise would have been to move ALL the poop to its own mixing bowl and honestly label it and place the finished product where it could not be accidentally chosen by the unsuspecting patron’s child.

Finally, a crucial aspect of achieving compromise is good faith efforts of both parties. CSL supporters have gone through the formal recall process, including the appeals process that culminated in a vote at the July 10 trustees meeting. On the other hand, the SLI leadership did not even provide its trustees with the recall appeal forms for the 3 books which they were scheduled to vote on. When this was stated by SLI trustee Mr. Pond, Ms. Hotek said, paraphrasing, “You just have to trust the review committee” if you don’t know what you’re voting on. The whole point of elevating recall appeals to the full SLI Board of Trustees to vote on is to have the full board make an informed decision. This failure to inform, and be informed, did not demonstrate a good faith effort. To the discredit of the SLI Board of Trustees, excepting Mr. Pond and Mr. Walker, they did not insist on being fully informed on what they were voting on, which may turn out to be the most important vote they will have ever made as a trustee. I think it was an abrogation of their responsibility as trustees and made them appear detached and disinterested in compromise within the community they are supposed to serve, choosing instead to rubber-stamp whatever Ms. Hotek, Ms. Ross, and the “inside team” had already decided would be the outcome.

Richard Jamieson
North River District, 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.