Mäßigungsgebot

Protecting Libraries as Safe(r) Spaces

What Not to Do

- Do not remain neutral when a hate group attempts to infiltrate the library. [...]

Hopefully an uncontroversial opinion: In these situations, "remaining neutral" isn't "neutral" at all.

Western States Center (2022). Confronting White Nationalism in Libraries: A Toolkit. https://www.westernstatescenter.org/libraries

life's too short to write for an imaginary critic that you fear will hate what you wrote

Good Research Practice and Academic Freedom

There's a lot to discuss about what's going on in the United States, but we all have limited time and capacity, so it's important to focus on some aspects that you feel you can address or help mitigate. It's also important not to judge others on which aspects they choose. Anyway.

Scholarly and Science Communication

I'm an expert in scholarly and science communication, so I was particularly alert to the news that not only future, but also already submitted and even accepted manuscripts by CDC researchers would have to be reviewed and cleaned of certain terms.

"CDC Researchers Ordered to Retract Papers Submitted to All Journals — Banned terms must be scrubbed from CDC-authored manuscripts" https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/faustfiles/114043

The Terms

Unfortunately, the terms in question did not surprise me. They are all related to trans and gender diverse people. There are so many layers to unpack and be outraged about. I want to focus on two and end with a third.

The Aspects

The first is good research practice. Censorship aside, it can be argued that, at the very least, it is not good research practice to replace accurate and medically correct scientific language with language that is very likely to be inaccurate or at least ambiguous, leaving room for misunderstanding. This is highly dangerous and damaging to the global scientific knowledge base. I must therefore question whether these articles can be accepted for publication or published at all.

Without ignoring censorship, the second aspect is that this is the beginning of the end of academic freedom, not just for the CDC, but for the whole country. They're restricting language and science.

The third is just to make it very clear that this is harmful to so many people. They're erasing people.

Fuzzy's January 2025

I listened to three audiobooks this month, which is two more than I usually do. I also read academic books, articles and more, as well as blogs, stories and news online. This has brought a lot of amazing ideas and concepts to my mind and inspired me to write and blog more. It has also made me feel anxious, but the latter is more due to the current state of the world. It's been a January, you know.

What and how we research

I know it's constantly stated that science is objective. I constantly emphasise that researchers are human beings and that their backgrounds, experiences and lives influence not only what they research, but also how they do it. That's why diversity in science is important. Yes, science is based on good scientific practice, transparency and reproducibility, but the what and how have degrees of freedom and are shaped by those who do the research.

’[...] But most of the research I do is more focused on sapphics, which would make sense, considering I am one.’ Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever had an openly queer teacher before. ‘That’s so cool,’ I say [...]. ‘Do a lot of professors end up researching things that, uh, also apply to them?’ ‘It depends,’ Fineman says. ‘In some fields, yes; a lot of my colleagues have a personal connection to their work. But not always. In any case, we’re very passionate about what we do.’

Zhao, A. (2024). Dear Wendy. Macmillan USA.

I don't know if I would do research on queer perspectives in library and information science if I wasn't queer myself. I don't know if I would choose a transformative research design if I didn't see inequalities and a need for change. Who we are shapes what we do and how we do it, whether it's in research or anywhere else.

Online-Veranstaltung zu Banned Books am Welttag des Buches

Gemeinsam mit der Kommission für Queere Hochschulpolitik der bukof (Bundeskonferenz der Frauen- und Gleichstellungsbeauftragten an Hochschulen) organisieren die Queerbrarians (eine Netzwerk queerer Librarians) ein queeres Online-Event zum World Book Day.

Nach einem einführenden Vortrag auf Deutsch von mir sprechen Eve & Lucie auf Englisch. Sie kämpfen gegen die Book Bans in ihrem County in Tennessee.

Das Event ist kostenfrei und braucht keine Anmeldung. Alle Interessierten sind herzlich willkommen.

Titel: Celebrating the Freedom to Read

Datum: 23. April 2025

Uhrzeit: 16:30 bis 18:00 Uhr

Flyer & Infos

Klimaungerechtigkeit

[...] da wir gelernt haben, »unsicher« in der Wissenschaft mit »keine Ahnung« zu übersetzen. Das Gegenteil wäre korrekt.

Es gibt kein brisanteres Beispiel dafür, dass ein Wort in der Wissenschaft eine andere Bedeutung hat als in der Alltagssprache und welche weitreichenden Konsequenzen das nach sich ziehen kann.

Was es zu retten gilt, ist nicht das Klima oder die Menschheit. Es geht schlicht und einfach darum, die Würde und Rechte der Menschen – und zwar aller Menschen – zu retten.

Das wird gerade von jenen nicht verstanden, die argumentieren, das Klima sei auch früher schon mal so warm gewesen und wahlweise die menschengemachte Klimaerwärmung daher kein Problem sei oder die gegenwärtige Klimaerwärmung gar nicht menschengemacht wäre. Insbesondere letzteres, also die Frage nach den Verursachenden, verblasst im Kontext des Zitats zu einem irrelevanten Aspekt eines gesellschaftlich relevanten Problems, das es dringend zu lösen gilt. Die Frage nach den Verursachenden gewinnt jedoch enorm an Bedeutung, wenn es darum geht, eine verantwortliche Rolle bei der Lösung der Gerechtigkeitskrise zu übernehmen und den am stärksten Betroffenen zu helfen.

Der kolonialfossile Klimawandel ist daher im Wesentlichen weder Klimakrise noch Klimakatastrophe [...], sondern eine Gerechtigkeitskrise. Diese Gerechtigkeitskrise durchzieht die Geschichte der Menschheit und findet nicht erst statt, seit der Klimawandel ein Thema ist. In Kombination mit den Auswirkungen des Klimawandels hat diese Gerechtigkeitskrise jedoch eine neue Dringlichkeit und globale Dimension erreicht, die nur mittelbar mit Physik zu tun hat.

Die menschengemachte Klimaveränderung mag zwar ein naturwissenschaftliches Problem sein. Die Herausforderung und damit auch die Krise, die sich daraus ergibt, ist jedoch eine gesellschaftliche.

Dies ist zum einen dem Selbstverständnis der meisten Naturwissenschaftler*innen geschuldet, die sich als »neutral« und damit außerhalb politischer Zusammenhänge sehen – was in meinen Augen eine Illusion ist. Daher klammern viele Forscher*innen eher politisch konnotierte Inhalte wie Schäden und Verluste von vornherein aus ihrer Arbeit aus.

Dieses Zitat kann man direkt mit meinem Post What and how we research in Zusammenhang bringen.

Otto, F. (2023). Klimaungerechtigkeit: Was die Klimakatastrophe mit Kapitalismus, Rassismus und Sexismus zu tun hat. Ullstein.

Most Ardently

How can you better the future, if you continue mimicking the past.

Oh, the irony of posting this quote in these times. How can A Pride & Prejudice Remix be so relevant today? I'm deeply concerned for my friends and all the people who are being targeted in the United States at this very moment. Over here, I'm afraid I'm looking at our past and our future at the same time when I see you and what you're facing right now.

More than anything else, this was what he wanted. To be himself, in the open, unabashedly.

That's all we want. How can we be a threat by being ourselves?

And what kind of life could one have with a crushed soul?

I don't know, but it feels like the world is trying really hard to crush our souls at the moment.

[...] you’re a different person when you’re permitted to be yourself. You’re so much more at ease, so much happier. [...] your entire demeanor is more authentic.

Because our souls aren't crushed when we can be who we are.

Novoa, G. C. (2024). Most Ardently: A Pride & Prejudice Remix. Feiwel & Friends.

So Harvard has decided not to give in without a fight

"No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue," said Alan Garber, Harvard’s president, in a statement to the university on Monday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/us/harvard-trump-reject-demands.html

This is a powerful and much-needed statement. Academia feels a glimmer of hope that not every university and not everyone in academia will give in without a fight. At the same time, the reasons are more strategic than simply protecting science, students, faculty and academic freedom.

Why Harvard Decided to Fight Trump

[...] any path the university chose seemed just as likely to lead to ongoing turmoil, and [...] officials at Harvard, [...] feared the White House would renege on any agreement.

[...] a strategy of "negotiation and conciliation seems to have no acceptable ending point."

[...] Harvard might have tried to negotiate just as Columbia did, "if it had assurance that the administration was negotiating in good faith."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/15/us/why-harvard-resisted-trumps-demands.html

There is no faith, no trust in the permanence of anything at this point. No decision, no agreement, no law is immutable, even for the shortest time, if the administration decides to change its mind. The ultimate goal is to dismantle academia anyway. So why even try to negotiate.

visit your local library!

they need your support <3