David Rice of Hick Christian presents a thorough dissection of the most recent failed arguments being used to attack the Christian County Library Board of Trustees in The True Library Critics Who Need Lessons.
Rice exposes how the anonymous attacks spread online by the same individuals are void of basic rules or standards of journalism. The truth is not important, apparently. The narrative is everything. It is not fun to read the articles, which drip with malice, but it is important to understand the depth of hatred that possesses the individual(s) who would write such things. It is not rational but driven by ideology and antagonism.
Highlights below:
"On Robert's Rules of Order:
While WAC repeatedly invokes Robert's Rules of Order to criticize the board, their arguments demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of parliamentary procedure. Let's examine several instances:
Meeting Minutes Content: In "Secrets That Money Can Buy," WAC criticizes the board for wanting to change meeting minutes practices, presenting this as an attempt to "rewrite history by removing our ability to access the very little transparency available." However, Robert's Rules explicitly states that minutes should primarily record actions taken, not detailed discussions: "The minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members" (RONR, 11th ed., p. 468). The board's desire to focus minutes on actions rather than discussions aligns with standard parliamentary procedure.
Abstention Explanation: WAC criticizes John Garrity for abstaining from a vote "without providing a reason as required by Robert's Rules of Order." This is incorrect. Robert's Rules does not require members to explain abstentions. While members may explain their votes, there is no parliamentary requirement to justify abstaining. In fact, Robert's Rules states that members have the right to abstain from voting (RONR, 11th ed., p. 407).
Voting Requirements: WAC claims that certain votes were improper, but they fail to understand the distinction between majority of members present and majority of the entire membership. Robert's Rules distinguishes between these types of requirements for different actions, and WAC's criticism fails to account for these distinctions.
Bylaw Amendments: WAC presents the board's decision to amend bylaws as though it were improper, but according to the HickChristian timeline, the board followed proper procedure by voting on the amendment during a regular meeting. Robert's Rules permits bylaw amendments by a two-thirds vote with appropriate notice (RONR, 11th ed., p. 593-594), and WAC provides no evidence that these requirements weren't met.
Executive Session Justification: WAC criticizes closed sessions but fails to acknowledge that Robert's Rules recognizes the legitimacy of executive sessions for matters such as legal advice. Their claim that "this blatant act of library staff omission and accountability is proof that the majority of the board is actively violating their bylaws" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how bylaws and parliamentary procedure interact with state laws permitting closed sessions for certain purposes.
These misapplications of Robert's Rules of Order suggest that WAC's criticisms are based on a superficial understanding of parliamentary procedure, selectively applied to support their predetermined narrative rather than to provide an accurate assessment of the board's procedural compliance.
Logical Fallacies
The WAC articles employ numerous logical fallacies that undermine their arguments. Here are several explicit examples:
Ad hominem attacks: Instead of addressing the merits of board decisions, they resort to personal attacks, calling members "stupid" and questioning their intelligence. In "Ignorance on Full Display," they write: "Questions such as 'does the library use the Dewey Decimal System,' or 'what's the age of consent in Missouri,' or 'how are book displays created' highlight the lack of knowledge about librarianship." Rather than recognizing these as legitimate questions from new board members seeking to understand operations, WAC characterizes them as proof of incompetence.
False attribution: They attribute viewpoints to board members that are contradicted by documented evidence. In "Ignorance on Full Display," WAC claims the board wants "to enact their own Library Bill of No Rights" and presents an inverted version of the Library Bill of Rights as though it represents the board's actual position. This completely misrepresents the board's stated concerns about certain ALA positions.
False dichotomy: In "Secrets That Money Can Buy," they write: "The conclusion is either this lawyer is horrendously bad at his job or Schneider is lying in effort to purposely keep the community in the dark." This ignores numerous other possible explanations for the situation described.
Straw man argument: Their "Library Bill of No Rights" parody states: "Materials should be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation." This is a complete distortion of the board's actual positions, making it easier to attack a position no one actually holds.
Hasty generalization: WAC writes: "For a group that 'claims' they haven't been working behind the scenes to circumvent the law, they are mysteriously getting caught in the act. A lot." This extrapolates from limited examples to sweeping conclusions about consistent illegal behavior.
Appeal to emotion: Rather than presenting factual arguments, WAC relies heavily on emotional language: "See how comfortable they are at breaking laws. Corruption, plain as day," and "Fed up yet? You will be." These emotional appeals substitute for substantive analysis.
Guilt by association: WAC repeatedly links the board to apocalyptic imagery with their "four horsemen" terminology, attempting to associate them with destruction rather than addressing their actual policies.
Confirmation bias: Every action by certain board members is interpreted in the most negative light possible: "We would also feel the crushing pressure to redact meeting minutes since it's not looking good for them." This assumes malicious intent rather than considering legitimate procedural reasons.
Journalistic Standards Abandoned
Professional journalism requires verification, context, and fairness. WAC articles fail these basic standards:
Verification: Many claims lack supporting evidence or citations to primary sources.
Context: They selectively highlight certain details while omitting crucial background information, such as who actually proposed book labeling.
Fairness: They make no apparent effort to present alternative viewpoints or to contact criticized individuals for comment.
Transparency: The authors themselves remain anonymous, making it impossible to evaluate their credentials or potential conflicts of interest.
The Shield of Anonymity
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the "We Are Concerned" operation is their complete anonymity. By hiding behind this anonymous façade, the authors appear to believe they can make any claim, no matter how false or defamatory, without accountability. This lack of transparency allows them to spread misinformation without facing the professional or personal consequences that would normally result from such factually challenged reporting.
The contrast is striking: while the board members they criticize have public profiles with verifiable credentials easily accessible on LinkedIn, the WAC authors remain hidden in the shadows. This one-sided transparency creates an unfair dynamic where public servants with established professional backgrounds are attacked by anonymous critics who face no similar scrutiny.
The anonymous nature of the blog raises serious questions about who is behind these attacks and what their true motivations might be. It also prevents readers from evaluating potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence the content."
Again, read the whole thing HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment