From: Mark Niemoeller
Columbus
In a Republic article about the school board work session (“BCSC board approves policy updates”, Sept. 13), Jana Wiersema quoted Superintendent Jim Roberts’ claim that BCSC librarians “have been attacked”. As the article said, this was in response to recent public disagreements over the decency of certain books contained in BCSC libraries. The context was a discussion about bringing librarians to the table at the next work session to get their viewpoints on a new book-screening policy. This was not the first time Dr Roberts claimed school librarians have been “attacked”, but this time he even advised that the board should make sure the librarians are safe when coming in to share their thoughts. I have attended most of these meetings and listened and commented, and have never seen or heard, or heard about, or made, any verbal attacks or threats, let alone physical ones.
I know of no basis for Roberts’ claims or insinuations. If he has a legitimate basis, or knows of some actual attacks, he has not said. He should either justify his accusations, or choose his words more wisely.
Disagreements are not “attacks”. To falsely accuse the opponent of an “attack” is an old debate tactic, based on one of the most fundamental rules in intellectual debate: Disagreements are perfectly fine in a debate, but personal attacks are not. There is a fundamental difference between an objective disagreement and a personal attack. The former merely disagrees with a position or policy, where the latter attacks or insults a person or persons. Also known as insults or verbal aggression or name-calling or “attacking the messenger” or ad hominem, personal attacks are offensive and fallacious and off-topic tactics.
A related tactic is to falsely accuse an “attack” to try to discredit the opponent in an illegitimate way. Also known as a “strawman distortion”, it distorts the opponent’s position, mischaracterizing it as a “personal attack”. The motive is to try to make the opposing argument seem less valid, easier to ‘knock down’, like a strawman. In this case, it’s an attempt to try to mischaracterize those who disagree with certain BCSC library books as being aggressive. Such underhanded tactics are common for the side losing the argument. The side that cannot support their claims will commonly resort to such tactics to try to reduce their opponents’ credibility. Sometimes it works; but when it’s caught and exposed, it backfires. If the tactic is recognized and called out, it’s the user that loses credibility.
I tried to say a lot of this exact same thing during public comment at the Sept. 11 board meeting, but was censored by the board president and uncontrolled disruption from the audience. Although this censorship was a new low for the new board that promised to improve public engagement, and therefore entirely newsworthy, your article did not report on it. Hence the need for this letter.
