Editor, The Times: There are several issues I take exception to regarding the editorial published June 25.
First, a vital part of the story was ignored: the involvement of a religious group in making this an issue. That fact should have been noted. It’s part of why some people are upset. We still (for now) have separation of church and state in this country. Taxpayer funding of the library— whether $1 or $500 million, whether 10% or 100%—doesn’t permit any religion to dictate the rules.
The firing of LaVonnia Moore from the library appears to have been an extreme step. I could certainly be wrong, but given how beloved she is by many, it seems reasonable that the library board should have been notified before taking such a harsh action. At the very least, Moore deserves a termination hearing.
Next, I take issue with the statement—presented as fact—that “some” want a library free of all restrictions and rules. That claim is both untrue and ludicrous.
In paragraph nine, you referred to the book as inappropriate. Who decided that? If it violates library policy, you should have made that clear by stating, “...an inappropriate book per library policy.”
The editorial also gives the impression that the book in question is sexually explicit. You must know that is not the case. It would have been easy to reword the paragraph to avoid leaving readers with the wrong impression.
As I read the piece, I felt the writer seemed slightly conflicted and at times cavalier. For example, the second paragraph opens with a backhanded blame aimed at the library, which set the tone for the rest of the editorial. An editorial is, of course, the opinion of the newspaper, so I expected a viewpoint to be stated—no surprise there.
What I gathered from the editorial besides the fact they seem inclined towards the Three Rivers position, is that we all need to work this out. The paper also acknowledges not everyone agrees, and the First Amendment is vital. Those are good points, and I believe most of us would agree.
Let’s now see if those sentiments lead to meaningful progress at the library. I don't hold out much hope for that. I hope I'm proved wrong.
I understand that some people are simply afraid of what they don’t understand. But when that fear is wielded like a weapon, many in our community are left feeling unloved and unseen.
The fact is: no one can pray away the gay. No one can “turn” your child gay or trans—any more than reading books about mermaids could make me one. It’s in their DNA. And honestly, given the challenges they face, I doubt it’s a life many LGBTQ+ individuals would choose if it were up to them.
All people want to feel seen and heard—to know they matter. Because they do.
DeAnn Strickland Komanecky Waycross
(Komanecky is the former managing editor of The Blackshear Times. )
