Sunday, October 4, 2015

Librarian Versus Librarian; Sexual Harassment Wins

Some librarians are willing to keep other librarians silent about sexual harassment and its causes within librarianship.

This "Sexual Harassment of Librarians" resource has been recognized as useful by at least one actually sexually harassed librarian, apparently, after only a month in existence as a locus for information that could help sexual harassed librarians.  What a great feeling it is for someone to say she wants other librarians to see this resource.

Still, she was afraid of the attacks, "reprisals" as she put it, against anyone who speaks out against the American Library Association [ALA] policy that enables sexual harassment of librarians, namely, its law-defying, pro-child porn policy (link).

Sure enough, a member of the "TeamHarpy" group of librarians (link) tries to convince people *not* to follow her advice to read Sexual Harassment of Librarians by attacking the messenger and never addressing the issue.  He proclaimed I violated copyright and that I have not received permission of the author, one of the TeamHarpy members.  Some people will do anything to keep people from learning how ALA is directly responsible for sexual harassment of librarians.

Michael Sauers, bully
of Nebraska Library
Watch as an anonymous librarian praises this Sexual Harassment of Librarians resource while getting repeatedly bullied by a TeamHarpy supporter, right up to the point where she feels her sexual harassment has been triggered.  See how see fears exactly this kind of personal attacks the TeamHarpy supporter uses to silence her, and she turns out to be 100% correct.  Eventually, she feels her sexual harassment has been triggered and she deletes her account, silencing herself forever, the very censorship TeamHarpy and those like them seek when they ignore the real issues and relentlessly attack the messenger.  Now there's one less sexual harassed librarian willing to speak out.

The importance of noting this is that librarians need to know there are others out there who have been sexually harassed while working in a library.  They are afraid to speak up.  They are bullied into silence.  Or they are constructively discharged (link).  But they are there and some people are willing to listen.

Sexual Harassment of Librarians is hereby asking those librarians to contact us and we will publish your stories anonymously here.  Hopefully pressure will build to the point where people finally decide to put an end to the sexual harassment of librarians, no matter who stands in the way with diversionary ad hominem argument.  Similar pressure is beginning to foretell an end to the Banned Books Week hoax (link).

Here is the announcement of the link to "Starting a Dialogue about Sexual Harassment in Libraries (link)" posted by anonymous librarian "hereitis8819," now showing as "[deleted]."  Watch as she is bullied for posting the link instead of a link to the original ALA publication called American Libraries.  Watch the bullying build to the point where the women feels triggered.  Eventually she deletes her account, forced into silence by the bullying, which is the whole purpose of the smears.

The bully is TeamHarpy supporter Michael Sauers, who at the time was the Technology Innovation Librarian, Nebraska Library Commission, Lincoln, NE and is "currently the Director of Technology for Do Space in Omaha, NE (link).

To read all the comments, you will have to click on "[+]SafeLibraries comment score below threshold  (20 children)" because TeamHarpy worked together to vote my comments not worthy of reading so that they get hidden by default.  This is how the free speech people work together.

Face of a bully for TeamHarpy,
Michael Sauers.
Republished below are the comments by the likely sexually harassed librarian and the bullying comments to which she responds.  It is shameful how she was treated by TeamHarpy.  It shows that some librarians will do absolutely anything to promote ALA no matter who gets harmed, in this case, triggering a sexually harassed librarian and forcing her to delete her account.  And I had just told him, before he bullied the librarian, to stop harassing me (link).

Michael Sauers's only regret for having bullied the sexually harassed librarian into feeling triggered then into self-censoring was that he got caught doing it, as this 6 August 2015 comment shows: "Michael Sauers: Do not engage. Repeat DO NOT ENGAGE! I've made that mistake. Please do not fall into the trap (link)."

His comment has three "likes."  One of the "likes" is from Kristen Pekoll, the Assistant Director of the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom.  So much for intellectual freedom from the Office for Intellectual Freedom.  Does she know she's high fiving the guy who bullied a sexually harassed librarian into silence?  Her Office for Intellectual Freedom, after all, is directly involved in claiming sexual harassment of librarians never happens (link).

Here are the Reddit comments with my notations intercalated:

Anonymous Librarian (hereitis8819):  "Starting a Dialogue about Sexual Harassment in Libraries #teamharpy (link)"

[Note: she includes the #TeamHarpy tag likely because she wants the alleged sexually harassed librarians using the #TeamHarpy hashtag on Twitter to see what she linked on Reddit, and I updated the link.]

Michael Sauers:  "Really, if you're going to link to this article, link to the original, not to a copy that's been posted in violation of the author's copyright and has been asked to be removed by the original publisher."

[Note, he is telling the original poster she should not have linked to me.]

Michael Sauers:  "Ok, I'll admit that I'm not the person who gets to determine whether this reprint of the complete article is a copyright violation or not. That's just my opinion, and maybe I'm wrong. Even if it isn't a copyright violation, general scholarly, blogger, and librarian ethics says you should have quoted from the article, provided your commentary as you are want to do, and then linked to the original giving those who choose to read the whole article the opportunity to do so, and to give the original author and publisher the Google juice, not you, the commentator.  Fact: The original publisher has asked that you take it down and you've refused. You also changed your post in response to their request. Is that an admission that at least in part you got it wrong?  However, my original comment and down-vote still stands. If the redditor's intent was to draw attention to the original author's article, then, like any good librarian, the redditor should have linked to the original."

[Note: the "redditor" is the original Reddit editor, namely the anonymous librarian who posted the Sexual Harassment of Librarians link.  He's telling her she's not a "good librarian" because she did not link directly to American Libraries.  So much for free speech.  The sexually harassed librarian might not have seen that post buried in American Libraries were it not for it's having been added to Sexual Harassment of Librarians.  Essentially, Michael Sauers is complaining I made the article visible and more accessible for sexually harassed librarians and he does not want people to do that.]

Michael Sauers:  "For the record, I've taken back nothing. I still believe you're violating copyright. I just said that it's not my ultimate decision to make and pointed out that I'm willing to consider that I may be wrong. I also did not tell people not to look at it, I told the original poster that it would have been better to link to the original, not your copy, and included my reasoning for doing so."

[Note:  So this is the third comment now where he bullies the original poster for linking to Sexual Harassment of Librarians instead of American Libraries.]

SafeLibraries:  "Did you ever consider there might be a reason why the original poster linked to my version? Perhaps he/she wants people to see the entirety of 'Sexual Harassment of Librarians' instead of the entirety of 'American Libraries' magazine?"

[Note:  As we shall see, this turns out to be right on the money.]

Michael Sauers:  "Yes, and the original poster is more than welcome to reply to my comment."

[Note:  This TeamHarpy supporter is now bating the anonymous librarian to speak up.]

Anonymous Librarian (hereitis8819):  "sorry, I was just trying to raise awareness about an issue that's important to me... :( "

[Note: Isn't that a sad answer?  Frowny face and all.  She was "just trying to raise awareness about an issue that's important to me" and Michael Sauers and members and other supporters of TeamHarpy are right there to ridicule her for posting the link on Reddit and me for posting it at all.  They show absolutely zero interest in the underlying issue.  When Michael Sauers sees this, he has to immediately correct her thinking, as we are about to see.]

Michael Sauers:  "Fair enough and I appreciate the effort in general. However, as I've written elsewhere in this thread, the more appropriate and good-librarian thing to do would have been to notice that Dan's post was a reprint (legal or otherwise,) and then posted a link to the original.
As I see you're new to Reddit and the /r/librarians board, (this being the only thing you've posted as far as I can tell,) I hope you take my advice in the spirit in which it was intended."

[Note:  After patronizing her, Michael Sauers continues the bullying and just will not let up on correcting the wrong thinking of the anonymous librarian.  Watch what happens next.]

Anonymous Librarian (hereitis8819):  "ok, sorry i'm a bad librarian for caring about preventing sexual harassment...  i found this website (Safe Libraries) about sexual harassment in libraries and wanted to share it here, but this is a throwaway account because i'm worried about reprisals."

[Note:  He bullies her into saying she is "sorry," into admitting she is a "bad librarian," and into being sorry for "caring about preventing sexual harassment."  Thank you, Michael Sauers, the bully of the Nebraska Library Commission at that time.  But look what else she reveals.  Yes, she "found this website (Safe Libraries) about sexual harassment in libraries and wanted to share it here," and that made us authors (Kevin and Dan) feel terrific that we were already helping likely sexually harassed librarians after only month building this new resource.  But she also revealed that librarians like her are afraid of librarians like Michael Sauers!  "[T]his is a throwaway account because i'm worried about reprisals."  Reprisals!  And Micheal Sauers delivers that in spades, to the point where she is apologizing for being a bad librarian and caring about the sexual harassment of librarians!  Way to go, Michael Sauers!  You've done yourself proud!  Oh no, Micheal Sauers is still not done harassing this woman.  Read on.]

Michael Sauers:  "I apologize if you feel that I've misrepresented you or made you feel like you needed fear reprisals in any way. I'm also someone who cares about harassment issues. All I was trying to address was the link to a disputed copy of the article as opposed to the original. My intent was to raise a netiquette issue and nothing more. Again I apologize for any discomfort I may have caused you."

[Note:  The patronizing continues, then there's the fifth or sixth time Michael Sauers is telling her she's a bad librarian even after he knows he has successfully bullied her into apologizing for caring about the issue.  To hide the issue of the cause for the sexually harassment of librarians being the ALA, he pulls "a netiquette issue and nothing more" out of his hat.  Netiquette is way more important than the sexual harassment of librarians, after all.  Obviously his repeating the same thing over and over shows he is not listening to her.  It shows he could care less about her concerns because his are far more important.  It belittles her and her feelings.  It reminds her of how she was treated when she was sexually harassed in her workplace and wanted the library to stop it.  How do I know?  What follows is the saddest comment of all.]

Anonymous Librarian (hereitis8819):  "thanks, that's nice of you to say. it's just frustrating to try and talk about an important issue and then see people downvote it like it doesn't exist. like, if you look through this thread, no one's even talking about the issue itself, it's all about a copyright/reprint deal.sorry, don't mean to dump on you, guess i've just had enough internet for one day, feeling kinda triggered tbh.
have a nice day. :)"

[Note:  And there it is, "feeling kinda triggered tbh" where tbh = to be honest.  Isn't this truly sad?  Michael Sauers has beaten her down so much, and Team Harpy member Lisa Rabey feigns concern only for copyright and permissions issues, that someone who apparently is a sexually harassed librarian seeking help and trying to let others know about a resource she found useful gets bullied to the point where she gets triggered into feeling like she did when she was being sexually harassed.  Well done, Team Harpy, you've defended your turf and ALA's by bullying and censoring a sexually harassed librarian.]

Michael Sauers:  "I would really like to take this conversation with you off Reddit. If you're willing, there's a contact form on my site @"

[Note:  Finally Michael Sauer realizes his reeducation process has been unsuccessful but does not want her to respond further since it makes him look worse and worse, so he tells the women whom he is harassing to contact him!  Offline!  Personal mansplaining (link) since he obviously was not successful here!  And as his 6 August 2015 comment pictured above shows, he blames me for his harassing the woman, not himself, and urges other librarians, "Do not engage.  Repeat DO NOT ENGAGE!"]

Anonymous Librarian (hereitis8819):  "ok, another day maybe. thanks."

[Note: Actually, no other day will she contact him because she was bullied into silence by him and others in Team Harpy and immediately deleted her Reddit account.]

This has got to be one of the meanest and most embarrassing incidents in librarianship.  Yes, librarians tell off other librarians occasionally, especially members of ALA Council telling off each other, but for a librarian to repeatedly bully an obviously sexually harassed librarian for daring to link to Sexual Harassment of Librarians, particularly where that librarian is a supporter of TeamHarpy that supposedly opposes sexual harassment of librarians truly takes the cake.  What is disgrace.  Michael Sauers, you are a disgrace.

People should also know this, all the attacks and down votes where designed to distract from the total fraud that was Team Harpy:

Of course, everything written at Sexual Harassment of Librarians not from a reliable source is our opinion.  The way Michael Sauers belittled and triggered that anonymous sexually harassed librarian repeatedly is plain for everyone to see, and it is in his own words.  What a disgrace.

When Sexual Harassment of Librarians says ALA will not help sexually harassed librarians because ALA policy is directly responsible for the sexual harassment, this is just another incident along the way of how ALA bullies sexually harassed librarians into silence, in this case via acolytes.

By the way, hundreds of librarians including ALA leadership at the Facebook group called ALA Think Tank (link) where bully Michael Sauers warned people DO NOT ENGAGE are working to delete from the Internet years of evidence of the sexual harassment of librarians and library employees at a page called Fans of Megan Fox (link) written by Sexual Harassment of Librarians coauthor Kevin DuJan.

As the Michael Sauers bully shows, when it's librarian versus librarian, sexual harassment wins.  Want your voice to rise above the bullies?  Contact us, Kevin and Dan, and we will publish your story anonymously.  We will go over the heads of ALA and, as anonymous sexually harassed librarian hereitis8819 (bullied/triggered into being deleted) illustrates, people are noticing.

URL of this page:

Monday, April 20, 2015

Code of Conduct for NJLA Conference

Code of Conduct for NJLA Conference

The New Jersey Library Association sponsors a variety of forums, meetings and professional development opportunities, including the annual spring Conference.  The purpose of these events is to provide NJ librarians with opportunities to learn, connect and grow, which we believe to have a positive impact on the development and improvement of libraries throughout the state.

NJLA does not tolerate harassment of members, attendees, staff, venue workers, speakers or other participants at any meetings or events sponsored by the organization.  Speakers are asked to frame discussion as openly and inclusively as possible and to be aware of how language or images may be perceived by others.  Participants may - and do - exercise their option to leave a session or a conversation.  As a statewide professional development association for librarians and library workers in New Jersey, the events sponsored by NJLA are an extension of work and no person should work under threat of harassment.

In an effort to create an environment based on mutual respect and free of harassment, some behaviors are specifically prohibited:
  • stalking (physically or virtually)
  • offensive verbal comments
  • bathroom policing
  • unwelcome physical attention or contact
  • intimidation
  • physical assault and/or battery
  • sustained disruption of events

All participants and presenters are expected to observe these rules and behaviors at all NJLA meetings or events. Any breach of this code of conduct should be reported immediately to the NJLA Executive Director or Event Organizers, who will determine appropriate action and consequences.

To report a problem or incident to the NJLA Executive Director or Event Organizers during the 2015 NJLA Conference in Long Branch:

Other contact information:

Long Branch Police (non-emergency): 732-222-1000

Monmouth Medical Center
300 2nd Avenue
Long Branch, NJ 07740


Ace Pharmacy
186 Broadway
Long Branch, NJ 07740

Rite Aid Pharmacy
205 Morris Ave
Long Branch, NJ 07740

To Call a Taxi:

Shore Taxi - 732-222-6688
Jersey Shore Cab - 732-222-5300


National Sexual Assault Hotline - 1-800-656-HOPE

Copyright 2015 New Jersey Library Association.  
Republished on for the information of readers with links to original sources.

Original source and source of graphic and map:

URL of this page:

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Another Librarian Speaks Out About Being Sexually Harassed

Another librarian speaks out about being sexually harassed (and the recent Team Harpy debacle), namely, well-liked, well-respected Meredith Farkas:
I’m disturbed by the fact that, after all of the petitions, and Facebook drama, and blog posts, and tweets about this no one seems to be talking about this (other than right-wing feminist-hating nut-jobs) since the lawsuit was settled and Lisa and nina published retractions.
Still the greatest tragedy here, in my opinion is that so many women suffer sexual harassment and most of the time the perpetrators get away with it.  And this whole sordid affair [#TeamHarpy] did little to help the cause of encouraging women to come forward.  I’ve been sexually harassed and stalked and never reported any of it.  But it was when a faculty member at a former job who used to stand too close to me and would put his arm around my waist sometimes later escalated to grabbing a colleagues breasts that I realized my silence was hurting other women.  Because men who do things like this don’t just do it once.  If they get away with something that you consider too minor to report, they may escalate to doing something much worse to someone else.  We have to find more ways to help women feel safe reporting harassment.  I’m happy that more conferences now have codes of conduct and discernible methods of reporting inappropriate behavior, and that will help, but it’s not enough. 


Note Team Harpy member/treasurer Sarah Houghton has not yet retracted anything—likely since she is ALA's public library Internet filtering expert and doesn't want to be connected further to one of the biggest hoaxes in American librarianship history.

URL of this page:

Friday, April 3, 2015

Letter to the Editor Supports Sexually Harassed Librarians

Here's a published letter to the editor supporting sexually harassed librarians, "Neither patrons nor library employees should be forced to suffer with sexual activity of any kind in the OPPL," and urging new library trustees to take action to protect them from further harassment:

3 Steps to Fixing the OPPL

Dear Editor,

There are three simple steps that the Orland Park Public Library Board of Trustees can take to make the library a safer place for children and families and fix the problems I have observed in this library in recent years.

First, the OPPL needs to install filters on its adult computers to block child pornography and other illegal content from being accessed and to prevent men from arousing themselves sexually in the adult computer area.  Neither patrons nor library employees should be forced to suffer with sexual activity of any kind in the OPPL.

Libraries such as those in Niles and Lemont have successfully eliminated this problem by blocking such sites on public computers.

A library is a taxpayer-funded facility for education and learning, and not a place for sexual activity of any kind.

Second, the OPPL should turn back to its mission statement and eliminate its outrageous food and jewelry purchases for staff.  Nowhere in the library's charter or mission statement does it state that the OPPL should be using taxpayer money to buy expensive treats or gifts for employees.  Yet, the OPPL maintains active purchasing accounts at the Orland Park Bakery and Noral Diamond Jewelers that provide no public benefit and should be immediately closed.  It is inexcusable to squander public money on expensive pastries and jewelry store purchases for highly-paid OPPL staffers who can afford to buy their own paczki and crystal bookends.

Third, the library's trustees need to come clean with the public about why police were not called when their own internal incident report shows that three witnesses reported to library staff that child porn was accessed in the OPPL.  The board has admitted that Library Director Mary Weimar did not call the police as she was required to do by their own policy.  This is especially troubling, because it appears that Weimar received no disciplinary action for this poor judgment and, in fact, was awarded raises that have brought her compensation package to $189,000 per year.  The woman who did not call the police when child porn was accessed in the OPPL is, thus, paid more than Orland Police Chief Tim McCarthy.

I have a problem with that and believe management and other personnel changes are needed to remedy ongoing safety and spending problems in the OPPL.  I urge the two new incoming trustees to take the three steps outlined above as soon as possible.

Megan Fox

Source:  "Letters to the Editor April 2, 2015," by Editor, Orland Park Prairie, 2 April 2015.  Republished with permission of Story Time Digital Media.

URL of this page:

Thursday, March 26, 2015

TeamHarpy Faked Sexual Harassment, Hurting True Efforts to Stop It

Three librarians worked together to lead an effort to smear another with false claims of sexual harassment.  Faking sexual harassment claims harms efforts to oppose true sexual harassment as much as faking censorship claims harms efforts to oppose true censorship. These three librarians are known as Team Harpy, and they have hurt opposition to sexual harassment.

Team Harpy comprises Lisa Rabey (@ByShieldMaiden), Nina de Jesus (@satifice), and, later, Sarah Houghton (The Librarian In Black, @TheLiB) pictured top right.  Ms. Houghton became the team treasurer of online collections.  "Sarah Houghton is running the legal defense fund for the sake of transparency and openness. (link)"  I believe she traveled to Canada to speak against Joe Murphy (@LibraryFuture), the victim of the fake, phoney, and fraudulent Team Harpy.

This kind of fakery harms true efforts to stop sexual harassment.  And I'm not the only one saying so:
I would also strongly advise against using this episode to proclaim that sexual harassment is not an issue within ALA.  Hopefully we as an organization can constructively address this issue though [sic] better documentation and dialog. - Daniel Cornwall, Alaska Chapter ALA Councilor
Correct, Mr. Cornwall, and that's why I started and Library Journal has written about it (link).  I'm trying to build a repository of information.

Just look how bad this #TeamHarpy debacle is:
I made false and damaging comments about librarian Joe Murphy for which I would like to apologize. .... 
... I posted tweets that referenced librarian Joe Murphy implying without a basis in fact that he was a sexual predator.  These unsubstantiated statements gained wide attention and caused Mr. Murphy significant damage. 
My intention in posting these tweets was to draw attention to the issue of sexual harassment of female librarians in the profession.  My statements were made carelessly, and were not based on facts.  I have never observed Mr. Murphy sexually harass or exhibit sexually predatory behavior. .... 
I was ill prepared for the damaging impact that these unfair statements would have.  I wholly retract my statements and unreservedly apologize to Mr. Murphy for the significant damage I have caused to his personal and professional reputation. 
I strongly encourage those who aligned with #teamharpy and decided to attack Mr. Murphy to cease to continue to defame or disparage him. ....
That is by Lisa Rabey of Team Harpy.  I have to use ellipses since Ms. Rabey successfully forced me to censor out information on sexual harassment here.  Team Harpy apparently was always interested in themselves, not in stopping the sexual harassment of librarians.

What a disgrace.

Where does Joe Murphy go to get his reputation back (link)?

Even I became a target of Team Harpy's spin machine, e.g.:

Then both Joe Murphy and I got a threat:

Then the free speech librarians like Ingrid Henny Abrams (@MagpieLibrarian) sent out the message to #TeamHarpy to block me, complete with false claims of homophobia, and almost 100 have, all because I drew parallels to my being sued for defamation for exposing Gay Hate @ Your Library (link):

And Team Harpy member Sarah Houghton?  She is ALA's top Internet filtering expert.  She says Internet filters do not work even though everyone knows they work really well now (link).  ALA just published a heavily-promoted report on ten years since CIPA called, "Fencing Out Knowledge: Impacts of CIPA 10 Years Later (link)," and how filters do not work, all based on Team Harpy member Sarah Houghton's research, if you look in the footnotes.  And now Sarah Houghton is a proven faker.  I've always said that report was false as it was based on Sarah Houghton's outdated findings.  I could never have imagined the extent of the fakery.  And yes, Team Harpy's Sarah Houghton is also helping to fund the defamation suit against me.  So while complaining about a supposed SLAPP suit against her Team Harpy members, Sarah Houghton's funding a SLAPP suit against me (link).

Anyway, I am trying to help sexually harassed librarians and I am asking people not to be discouraged by Team Harpy's fakery.  Please contact me if you need help or if you want to write anonymously here at

And I see readers of #GamerGate are interested in what I'm writing.  Welcome.


This story has gone international.  See:
I commented there as follows:
Missing from this story is the third member of TeamHarpy, Sarah Houghton, calling herself the "Librarian in Black." Interestingly, the Librarian in Black got involved in this matter to the point of essentially becoming part of TeamHarpy. And we know what happened to TeamHarpy.  And the Librarian in Black is the American Library Association’s [ALA] leading expert on library filtering software and she says filters don't work and should not be used.  And your local library might not use filters as a direct result of this proven liar's false claims.  
This intentional destruction of a man's career over false allegations for a year is in part the Librarian in Black's doing. It was all false. That has got to be very bad for Librarian in Black's credibility. And she's ALA's leading expert saying library filters do not work. That has got to be very bad for ALA's credibility.  
They can spin it all they want but if this were a court of law opposing counsel would tear her to pieces. I know, I've investigated experts myself and they lost all credibility as a result of what I uncovered.  
Of course library media will do all they can to ignore how ALA's filtering expert has completely destroyed her credibility. I mean this is a national story now, this TeamHarpy debacle.  
What a complete debacle.  
When ALA is on your local library, in its anything-goes policy based on ALA's “Library Bill of Rights,” now you know ALA’s top expert supporting the claim that library filters do no work is one of the TeamHarpy liars who destroyed a man’s career. They lied there and they are lying about filters not working when everyone now knows they work well. See “FCC: Filters Work, Communities Should Decide, Libraries Should Revisit CIPA”  
Don’t let a TeamHarpy liar influence your public library’s following the law by filtering out p0rn, since libraries are for the use and benefit of the community by law, and that precludes p0rn, no matter what ALA and its TeamHarpy liar-expert says.  
My opinion, of course.  I have to say that so I don't get sued by the self-arrogated free speech police, again.  Contact me for help cleaning out the p0rn from your local library.

URL of this opinion:

Monday, March 23, 2015

Librarians Discuss Sexual Harassment on Reddit

Librarians are discussing sexual harassment of librarians on Reddit:

I am a public librarian and I strictly enforce a no porn policy. My reasoning is that whatever freedom of information rights you have viewing pornography on library computers impacts the other users and staff and creates a hostile space for them. That is why I enforce the no porn rule, for the larger community. 
Why did ALA say otherwise and what is the reasoning for this? 
As for liability, I have been throwing out pervs for years, never had a problem with it.
At this point there are almost 200 comments.  Join in!

Here's my comment:
Two main things going on regarding porn in public libraries. One is state law and the second if the US Supreme Court case of United States v. American Library Association. 
Regarding state law, say, Illinois, Illinois state library law requires that Illinois libraries be for the use and benefit of the public. Porn is neither for the use nor benefit of the public. Actually, porn is for misuse and the harm of the public and those sexually trafficked victims depicted therein. Illinois law, therefore, precludes porn from all libraries across Illinois. That libraries like the Chicago Public Library allow unlimited porn, that is a testament to the American Library Association's effectiveness in misleading people into not following or not even being aware of Illinois library law. My saying that is partly why ALA is involved in a SLAPP suit to silence me from saying just that. 
Then comes US v. ALA. This 2003 US Supreme Court case ruled that even though porn may be "constitutionally protected material" outside the library, inside the library it is traditionally blocked and may continue to be blocked using Internet filters. It is true that ALA teaches librarians and library trustees that there is a First Amendment right to porn in libraries. That doesn't make it true. There is no such right. It's the exact opposite. 
So you are right on for strictly enforcing a no porn policy. Porn has nothing to do with the "freedom of information."  
Further, you are absolutely correct that it creates a hostile workspace for librarians. ALA specifically denies that. Naturally, its ALA policy applied locally that promotes the porn that causes the sexual harassment. I'm trying to help sexually harassed librarians with
Now you asked, "Why did ALA say otherwise and what is the reasoning for this?" See "Porn Facilitation in Public Libraries: ALA Guides Librarians to Defy SCOTUS" and "Sexual Harassment of Librarians Never Happens; Child Pornography is Intellectual Freedom." 
If you or any other librarian wish a place to speak publicly and anonymously so you don't get fired, please consider contacting me at SafeLibraries.
Here's the response of samurailibrarian:
Seriously Dan, I know who you are and I could not possibly hate you anymore than I already do.   
Go fuck yourself. You have no IDEA how much I fucking hate you and your little asshole group. Seriously go fuck yourself in every way imaginable you lying sack of shit.
Sounds like "samurai librarian" is cutting off his nose to spite his face?  He/she made comments I couldn't agree with more.  But can you imagine a librarian trying to help sexually harassed librarians being able to maintain a job given such statements?  This is an example of why sexually harassed librarians fear speaking out.  There's no free speech in librarianship.

Here are other concerns raised on that Reddit page:

URL of this page:

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Sexual Harassment In a Nutshell

A library director summarized her training on sexual harassment for other librarians to see.  It's really succinct, sort of like sexual harassment training in a nutshell.

Click through to see what was reported and to see a link to the presumed actual training!

URL of this page:

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Male Librarians Are Harassed Too

Male librarians are sexually harassed too:

Of course, sometimes librarians (a library public relations employee and a library board trustee in this case) sexually harass male patrons (in this case one of the authors of this "Sexual Harassment of Librarians" publication):

Know any more good articles to post or better URLs not behind a pay wall?  Please contact us and we'll add to the list.

URL of this page:

Monday, February 23, 2015

Are Affluent Libraries More Dangerous Than Poor Libraries?

Here's an interesting question for you to ponder: are libraries in affluent areas (suburbs) more dangerous than libraries in poor areas (disadvantaged urban)?

One trend I've noticed while researching and auditing the incident reports in Illinois libraries for the last two years is that libraries in affluent areas seem to have more problems with incidents of sexual activity, masturbation, child pornography being accessed, and sexually hostile work environments than libraries that are in poor areas without a lot of money.

I have formed a theory that goes something like this:

* Wealthy communities have more funds than they know what to do with, so they pay library management ridiculously large salaries. Example: Orland Park (an affluent southwestern suburb of Chicago) has a library director who makes $189,000/year. That is more than the governor of Illinois is paid. A poor community could never afford to pay a director a salary of $189,000/year. The poor communities have directors who make $60,000/year or so.

* The directors who command salaries like $189,000/year are likely to be radical leftists who toe the ALA's line. These are typically white women who are Baby Boomers and who believe their real mission as a director is to be involved in the ALA's political agenda to "transform communities by transforming libraries". These radicals only seek the highly paid positions…so libraries offering huge salaries for directors end up with one of these rich, white, radical leftist women as a director.

* Poor libraries can't afford one of the rich, white, radical leftist women as a director…and the people who will work for $60,000/year are not people who seem themselves as committed leftists. The people who work for $60,000 can't afford to be so committed to the ALA's political agenda and perhaps they don't see any value to them or their communities to listen to the ALA. There's also a more diverse pool of talent at this level, where the directors are not all white, leftist women. Black library directors exist at the $60,000/year level and it's been my experience that the black and other minority library directors and staff do not tolerate any sexual misconduct or abuse in their libraries. It's only the white, rich, radical leftists who take pride in looking the other way when illegal activity occurs in their libraries. Minority directors DO NOT seem to believe it is part of their mission to allow this garbage to keep happening.

* The affluent communities end up with directors who feel they prove they are enlightened for looking the other way when illegal activity occurs in their libraries, because they want to be so "enlightened" that they allow sexual activity in their libraries as proof that they are not "judging" the people who are using the library as a place for sex. The poor communities in contrast get directors who don't put up with any of this garbage and instead view the people having sex in libraries and doing other illegal things as a problem they want to stamp out.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Do you see how the affluent suburbs acquire radical leftists who want to make some sort of demented point by allowing crimes to be committed, because they feel they prove they are "enlightened" for not wanting to judge the people committing the crimes?

Do you see how the poorer communities are blessed to have directors who have a zero tolerance for crime in their libraries, since these directors do not have the idle free time and the hubris that comes with sky-high salaries (which alienates the rich, white leftists from reality)?

My working theory is that the suburbs end up having more instances of child pornography being accessed, masturbation occurring, and sexual activity in their libraries than the poor urban libraries have and this is all a direct result of the suburban libraries hiring the ALA's "cream of the crop" directors.

Employing ALA acolytes in library management positions has the consequence of creating libraries that allow sex crimes to occur and dangers to children to multiply.

My suggestion is to keep library director salary at around $60,000/year, then maybe the rich, white, leftists who occupy the $189,000/year positions will no longer want to work in libraries—and the negative influence that these women have on communities will be eliminated.


URL of this page:

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Illinois HB 2689 to Protect Librarians from Sexual Harassment

Rep. Peter Breen
Illinois HB 2689 (link) "[c]reates the Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act."  Its sponsor, Rep. Peter Breen (link), designed the bill to, among other things, protect librarians from being sexually harassed and having to work in a hostile work environment that is the direct result of library patrons viewing unfiltered pornography including child pornography.
Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act:  HB 2689 requires internet filters on public library computers to prevent the viewing of hard-core pornography on those computers.  Breen emphatically stated that, “I’ve heard from many moms over the years that adult men are regularly viewing hard-core pornography on public library computers, in full view of children and others.  This is an abuse of taxpayer resources and creates a hostile environment for public library employees and patrons.  No child should have to walk past obscene and abusive material in order to take advantage of the educational opportunities available at their public library.”
No doubt the American Library Association [ALA] and the Illinois Library Association [ILA] will work to see the defeat of this bill because promoting child pornography (link) and "constitutionally protected" pornography (link) trumps protecting librarians from sexual harassment and having to work in a hostile work environment.  Indeed, ALA recently revealed that librarians have never been sexually harassed and likely never will be (link).  To admit otherwise is to admit its own policy applied locally is at fault.

Prediction: the usual excuses will be laid out by ALA/ILA as to why the bill should fail.
  1. It's overbroad, which it is not as it tracks the federal Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] law.
  2. It takes away local control, but it actually restores local control from ALA/ILA that has effectively taken away local control by massively pressuring libraries to follow ALA diktat.
  3. It violates freedom of speech, the First Amendment, and intellectual freedom, but CIPA has already been ruled to be constitutional by the US Supreme Court that ruled that pornography may be completely blocked with filters without violating the First Amendment.  See United States v. American Library Association (link), 539 US 194 (2003).  By the way, in Illinois, Internet porn in public libraries is illegal under existing state law (link).
  4. Internet filters do not work well.  The reality is ALA was forced to admit library Internet filters work well (link) and the Federal Communications Commission recently revealed library filters work really well, communities should get to decide whether to use them, and librarians need to reconsider old grudges against filters (link).
Prediction: ILA will order local libraries to crank up library Internet filter strength to block nearly everything possible, having placed handouts at the computers urging patrons to call to oppose the filters.  Or libraries will simply turn off the computers and leave up signs about the draconian HB 2689 that must be defeated, riling up the people to call the legislature to kill the bill.  It's as if ILA controls local community resources and the people managing them because I sure would not want my local library's filters turned up or computers cut off just so some state library association can astroturf fake support.

Both those predictions are easy to make because both have already occurred and have successfully misled people.  Examples and more:
Sponsor Pete Breen is on the right track.  CIPA author Ernest Istook specifically stated how ALA misleads up to a third of American libraries into allowing porn despite the law.  He specifically laid out exactly how ALA misleads people, and no doubt the same misleading tactics will be at work against HB 2689.  He specifically advises legislators to use the federal CIPA model to create similar law like the Illinois state Internet Screening in Public Libraries Act.  So to see how Pete Breen is on the right track, read what the CIPA author said about how ALA misleads and what can be done to stop it:
Did you notice how the CIPA author spoke out on behalf of sexually harassed librarians? "Many librarians complain that if you make pornography freely accessible, oh, and the behaviors that come with it, you create a hostile work environment."

They do complain but you won't hear it in Library Journal or ALA's own American Libraries.  What the CIPA author said about sexually harassed librarians never made it into library media.  They are protecting the very policy that harms communities and creates hostile work environments for librarians.  When they do write about it, they mock it, like calling it "poppycock" (link).  Are you a sexually harassed librarian?  Your library media is working to bury anything that could help you.

It is really good that federal and state legislators are speaking up for sexually harassed librarians.  Bravo, Representative Peter Breen.

Now it's time for the people of Illinois to expect ALA/ILA to promulgate the usual false astroturfing and to stop letting them control your local communities.  If you won't do it for yourselves, do it for the sexually harassed librarians forced to work in hostile work environments—Illinois public libraries.


Exactly as I predicted, the Illinois Library Association has pulled out the exact same tried and true lies to mislead people yet again:

URL of this page:

Monday, February 16, 2015

Librarian Fired For Suggesting Safety Improvements After Rape

A librarian is raped.  As a result, another librarian makes safety suggestions.  Result?  She's demoted then fired.  She's told it wasn't her place to make safety suggestions: "You [sic] job does not include discussion of ... the daily administration of this Library System...."

The case is Kennedy v. Tangipahoa Parish Library, 224 F. 3d 359 (5th Cir. 2000).

Donna KENNEDY, Plaintiff-Appellant,


Pat Sledge, Director of the Tangipahoa Parish Library System, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-30277.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

August 15, 2000.

Thomas Joseph Hogan, Jr. (argued), Hogan & Hogan, Hammond, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Scott G. Vincent (argued), New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Donna Kennedy ("Kennedy") appeals from the district court's dismissal of her First Amendment cause of action for failure to state a claim, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Because we find that Kennedy has stated a claim and created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment, we reverse and remand.

I.  Factual and Procedural Background

Kennedy began working at the Tangipahoa Parish Library ("the Library") on March 21, 1995. By all objective criteria, she performed her job well. Over the course of two years, she received five promotions with commensurate pay raises. At the time the Library terminated her, Kennedy served in two managerial positions, Automation Coordinator and Technical Services Supervisor. In Kennedy's June 1997 evaluation, her last before being fired, appellee Pat Sledge ("Sledge"), the Library's director, rated Kennedy's performance overall as "excellent."

The events leading to Kennedy's termination commenced on October 15, 1997. On that day, Virginia Patanella ("Patanella") and her supervisor, branch manager Sannie Bonfiglio ("Bonfiglio"), were working at the Independence branch of the Library. Around 1:00 pm, Bonfiglio called the Library's administrative offices to ask that a replacement worker be sent to the Independence branch; Bonfiglio was departing work early to prepare for her daughter's wedding that evening. The person to whom Bonfiglio spoke in the administrative offices apparently told Bonfiglio to stay at work because she only had a few hours left. But at 3:15, Bonfiglio again called the administrative offices and reported that she was going home. No one arrived to replace Bonfiglio, so Patanella continued working alone.

At 4:00 pm, Archie Dean Forsythe ("Forsythe"), an apparently homeless man with a criminal record and a history of mental illness, entered the Independence branch. Finding no patrons in the library, Forsythe raped Patanella, threatened to kill her, and severely beat her about her head, fracturing several bones in her face. A patron entering the library during the rape summoned an off-duty police officer, Sergeant R.J. Guarena, Jr. ("Sergeant Guarena"), who was grocery shopping across the street. Sergeant Guarena confronted Forsythe while he was pulling up his pants. A struggle ensued and Guarena succeeded in apprehending Forsythe.

The crime, its brutal nature, the dramatic apprehension of Forsythe, and the lack of security at any of the Library's branches left the community in an uproar. By the appellee's own admission, the crime sparked intense media scrutiny and gossip. Responding to these community pressures, the Tangipahoa Parish Council ("Council") sent a letter to Sledge on October 16, 1997, the day after the crime; the letter requested that Sledge detail how she planned to prevent such occurrences in the future.

On October 17, 1997, Kennedy visited Patanella in the hospital. Having been told that Patanella was fine except for some bruises, Kennedy was unprepared for Patanella's true condition.[1] Moved, Kennedy spoke to Patanella about the rape, and Patanella confessed that her main concern was that others not suffer the same fate.[2]

On her way home from the hospital, Kennedy stopped at the Ponchatoula branch, where, upon her arrival, branch manager Lenore Johnson ("Johnson") was hanging up the phone after talking with Sledge. Johnson confided to Kennedy that Sledge had requested help with "damage control" regarding Patanella's rape. As Sledge was ultimately responsible for maintaining the employment of both Bonfiglio, the branch manager who left early in the day with only two hours notice, and the administrative offices' employee who failed to dispatch a replacement for Bonfiglio, Sledge understandably wanted aid in dealing with the fallout. Moreover, Sledge was hoping that the appellee Tangipahoa Parish Library Board of Control ("the Board of Control" or "the Board") would soon approve spending for a building to house the Hammond branch of the Library, and the rape obviously had the potential to jeopardize those plans.[3]

Kennedy became extremely concerned after speaking with Johnson. Kennedy had observed in the past that Sledge had downplayed any events that cast the library in a negative light, and Kennedy feared that de-emphasizing Patanella's rape could have terrible consequences. On October 18, 1997, Kennedy wrote a letter. She hoped that this letter would prompt Sledge and the Board to confront the risks occasioned by the lack of security at the Library branches. In its salient parts, the letter stated:
I would like to suggest to the Library Board and Administration a much needed change in the Tangipahoa Parish Library policy. 
Suggested Policy: There will be at least two library employees present at all times when the Library is open to the public. No library employee (male or female) will be in an unlocked library building alone. Also, two library employees must be present to close the library after it has been open to the public. 
. . . . 
I also venture to suggest, that if it is deemed that there is not enough circulation to support two employees at the Clark and Loranger branches, that these branches be closed and the employees transferred to other branches. 
Please note that this is not a knee-jerk reaction to this hideous crime. Similar changes have been discussed, that I am aware of, due to the drinking and drug activities on the corner down from the Loranger Branch and the distasteful pranks, suspicious characters, and rude and harassing patrons at the Kentwood Branch.[4] 
It is my humble opinion that what happened at the Independence Branch on October 15, 1997 cannot be down played. This event must be addressed and steps taken to prevent a similar act. . . . 
Now is the time for the Library Board and Administration to take a firm stand and address the question: Are we ready to show the Library employees and Tangipahoa Parish residents that we will do everything possible to protect the safety of our Library employees and our Library patrons?
Kennedy signed the letter in her capacity as Automation Coordinator and Technical Services Supervisor and enclosed a copy of part of the Library's Safety Program, which sets forth the Library's policy for dealing with investigations of accidents. Included within this section are the directives "ENCOURAGE people to give their ideas for preventing a similar accident," and "FOLLOW UP to make sure conditions are corrected."

Kennedy mailed the letter to the members of the Board of Control and the Library branch managers. She hand-delivered a copy of the letter to Patanella the day she wrote it.

The following Monday, October 20, 1997, Kennedy attended a meeting called by Sledge at the Amite branch. At the meeting, Sledge reprimanded those in attendance for personally attacking her. Specifically, Sledge singled out Anne Ellzey. Sledge then indicated that she had spoken with Patanella, and that Patanella primarily desired that the Library employees stop gossiping about the rape. Remembering Patanella's plea that no other librarians work alone, Kennedy ventured a comment that the situation was not about Sledge, but rather about Patanella and the safety of the patrons and employees at the Library.

After the meeting, Kennedy asked to speak with Sledge. Kennedy then showed Sledge the letter. Sledge perused it and remarked that it was well written. The encounter was unremarkable, and Kennedy departed to complete her work for that day in the usual manner.

Sledge answered the Council's request for policy changes on October 20, 1997 with a 10-step plan designed to heighten security. Sledge's proposal included a provision insisting that two employees be present at any Library branch open to the public, though the record does not reveal whether Sledge incorporated Kennedy's idea or thought of it independently.

Three days later, on October 23, 1997, the Board of Control held a meeting. Security matters were not on the agenda, but Board member Howard G. Ridgel ("Ridgel") broached the topic. Board chairman Edward B. Dufreche attempted to postpone the issue, arguing that more time was necessary to examine all the options. Ridgel urged the Board members to confront the problem and mentioned that Kennedy's letter had also encouraged the Board not to gloss over the rape and the safety concerns it highlighted. The Board members then voted to address the security issue and adopted Sledge's 10-step plan at the meeting.[5]

That afternoon, Sledge penned a letter demoting Kennedy and stripping her of all her supervisory duties. Though Sledge and the Board of Control concede that Sledge demoted Kennedy in response to her letter, the announcement of this demotion criticized Kennedy in general terms:
It is with disappointment that I recognize and accept the fact that you and I no longer share the same vision of the future for the Tangipahoa Parish Library System. 
It has become apparent that you have assumed far too much authority for your position as Automation Coordinator and Technical Services Supervisor. Your assigned role does not include discussing opening and closing of library branches, nor does include [sic] discussing with other employees what I, as the appointed Director, do correctly or, in you [sic] opinion, incorrectly. 
. . . . 
You [sic] job does not include discussion of personnel, the daily administration of this Library System nor meeting with business representatives[6] that are not directly concerned with your departments, nor writing derogative comments about local communities.
Rather than delivering the demotion letter to Kennedy personally or at work, Sledge mailed the letter by certified mail to three addresses in Kennedy's personnel file. On October 30, 1997, fully a week after Sledge composed and sent the demotion letter, Kennedy's father called Kennedy at work to tell her that he had declined to sign for a certified letter for her from the Library. On October 31, 1997, Kennedy, who was familiar with the Library's protocol of delivering bad news by certified mail, called Sledge to find out what the letter said. Sledge refused to speak with Kennedy on the phone, but Sledge allowed that she would send a copy of the demotion letter to Kennedy at work on November 3, 1997. Kennedy read the letter on November 3, and thereby became informed of her demotion, more than 10 days after its occurrence.

Sledge made an appointment for November 10, 1997 to speak with Kennedy about her job. Sledge's stated purposes for the meeting were to discuss the reasons for Kennedy's demotion and her new job responsibilities, to agree upon a lower wage, and to assess Kennedy's willingness to continue working at the library in a non-supervisory capacity. The meeting, however, never occurred. On November 10, 1997, Kennedy showed up for the meeting with a tape recorder and her father, whom she wanted along as a witness. Sledge, meanwhile, had asked Cindy Camp to join the meeting, unbeknownst to Kennedy. Sledge refused to permit Kennedy to record the meeting or to have her father present as a witness. Sledge then fired Kennedy.[7]

Kennedy filed a grievance with the personnel committee of the Library. The Board of Control upheld the personnel committee's decision in favor of Sledge on February or March 17, 1997. Kennedy then filed this present action on March 26, 1998.

During a hearing on December 2, 1998, the district court denied Kennedy's motion to amend her complaint and granted Sledge's motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity. Ignoring the court's order, Kennedy filed a first amended complaint on December 7, 1998. The district court permitted the clerk of the court to place the first amended complaint in the record.

Sledge, who apparently was unsure of the significance of the first amended complaint, and the Board then moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, which motion the district court granted, entering its final order on February 23, 1999.[8]

II.  Standard of Review

III.  Failure to State a Claim

IV.  Qualified Immunity

V.  Conclusion

We hold, as a matter of law, that Kennedy spoke on a matter of public concern, and therefore, that her first amended complaint states a claim for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. We further hold that the district court should have granted Kennedy leave to amend her complaint and should have considered her first amended complaint. We are thus constrained to reverse the district court's dismissal of the case on these grounds and remand for a new trial on the merits.

We further hold that Kennedy has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and raised a fact issue as to whether Sledge acted in an objectively reasonable manner in demoting Kennedy in response to her letter. We therefore reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on this ground and remand for a trial on the merits.


[1] One newspaper described Patanella's appearance on Friday, October 17, as follows: "Her face [had] . . . two deep purple/pink bruises where eyes should be. Her eyes had just barely slit open a little that morning for the first time since the attack, she said. She had stitches on the side of her head, and her hair was stiff with dried blood." Gloria Lupo, I'm Going to Kill You, Says the Attacker, The Amite Tangi Digest, Oct. 22, 1997, at 1. 
[2] Indeed, Patanella said the same thing in The Amite Tangi Digest article. Id. at 1 ("I don't want it to happen to anyone else. I hope no one will have to be left alone in the libraries again."). 
[3] The Board did in fact approve the resolution to purchase a building for the Hammond branch on November 7, 1997. See Sharyn C. Brecheen, Parish Library Wants to Buy Permanent Home for Hammond Branch, The Amite Tangi Digest, Nov. 12, 1997. 
[4] These references relate to an incident in which a patron sat in the Kentwood branch and stared at the librarians for hours on end. Shortly thereafter, the librarians found a dead cat in their drop box. 
[5] A newspaper article detailing the October 23, 1997 Board of Control meeting reports that Ridgel mentioned Kennedy's letter. See Sylvia Schon, Libraries Take Safety Measures, Daily Star, Oct. 24, 1997, at 1. The article also quotes Kennedy telling the Board of Control, "I appreciate the fact that Buddy [Ridgel] brought this up. We're all wondering what's going to be happening. It's good to let the employees and the public know that you're talking about this and doing something about it." Id
[6] This is apparently a reference to an incident in which a representative of a security company talked to Kennedy about where he should place a cable. As the location of cables for the computer network was within Kennedy's authority as Technical Services Supervisor, she was the correct Library representative to answer the security company representative's questions. Kennedy's conduct in this regard presented no problem to Sledge until Kennedy mentioned at the October 23, 1997 Board of Control meeting that she had spoken with a representative of the security company. 
[7] The parties dispute the facts surrounding this meeting. Kennedy claims that Sledge planned to fire her on October 23, the date of the Board meeting. Kennedy surmises that Sledge demoted Kennedy because of the letter, waited two weeks as required by Library policy, and then fired her. Kennedy supports her inference with the fact that Sledge had prepared Kennedy's final paycheck prior to the meeting. Sledge, on the other hand, claims that when Kennedy indicated her desire to record the meeting, Sledge promptly fired her for insubordination. 
[8] The record is in an unfortunate state that leaves unknown the true grounds for the district court's dismissal. Appellees styled their motion to dismiss as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. The district court stated its reasons for the dismissal from the bench during oral argument, but neither party requested that a court reporter make a record of oral argument. Moreover, the district court's judgment relates the grounds of dismissal only as being those set forth during oral argument. As we lack any objective account of the district court's reasoning for the dismissal, we must conduct both Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56 analyses before we may properly reach our conclusion that the district court's dismissal warrants reversal and remand for a trial on the merits. 

URL of this page: