MPL employee gives pro-ad side

Ryan T. Curry, author of earlier comments in favor of the Mao ad to raise money for the building pictured here, confirms that, yes, he indeed works for the Minneapolis Public Library. He sent along a nice second note, and I’m delighted to reproduce it in full. Ryan assures me he was speaking for himself, not MPL. I’ll take him at his word. Read on for Ryan’s further thoughts.

The positive side of the Mao controversy is that maybe all this passion can now be directed to other matters such as more local and state money to get the MPL hours extended for K-12 students and others. Also, how about campaigns against anti-school, anti-library laws such as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act—sleazily passed amid almost universal media apathy? I hope Ryan sticks around in the TeleBlog comment area. Thanks, Ryan! Andrews/Birt is welcome to drop by, too. Maybe A/B or another agency can crank up an ad campaign to get those old hours restored and perhaps even take on Bono.

Okay–now here’s Ryan’s side:

David, thank you for your very civil reply, and your civil disagreement on Teleread. I am indeed the Ryan Curry who works for MPL, donated to the MPL personnel budget (when the layoffs hit from the State budget cuts), and wrote in to the Mpls. Pulse newspaper. Me, all three. I did not disclose my employment at MPL because I was merely speaking for myself and did not want to mislead anyone into thinking I was speaking for the Library. It may be different with a situation like Teleread where my full text is printed, but I know that when writing in to newspapers they tend to cut out what they will, and that could include my statement that although I work for, I am not speaking on behalf of. I certainly can assure you that I have not been prompted by anyone here in MPL Mgmt. to write into Teleread or anywhere else on behalf of MPL and frankly, I would refuse with a broken heart if that were to happen. In my opinion the upper levels of MPL mgmt. are very progressive and competent leaders. I still dont see how using the image of a man (who did slaughter many of his own people) is racist…now Hitler, he directed his campaign of death at largely one race in particular and that is quite a different slant then killing for ideological reasons that go against the party line. Racism: noun 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.

I see nothing of this (in the big picture…I’m not a historian and there may be instances but not from what I have seen overall) in Mao’s life, nor do I see it within the use of his image some 30 years following his death. And so I wonder why the effect will be received as “racism?” Is it becuase he is a Chinese man and that is the only reason? If so that is troubling. None the less, you may be right, that may be how it is “perceived.”

Many MPL staff have been discussing the wisdom of the Mao ad internally, and my comments spring forth from those discussions; the leftover fire in my belly prompted my comment to teleread.

In my position at MPL I was not consulted or aware of the Mao ad before it was a done deal so I have no personal, I-made-this-decision sort of investment in it. I did take the Star Tribune poll (yes, only once!), and although I think most negative reactions to Mao are quite overblown, more detailed scrutiny of how ads will be perceived would be a wise move on the part of MPL. I get it that sometimes its not what you say but what is heard. Some folks I talk to really like the ad and some don’t (some are indifferent). Please post this to your comment page if you will, and thank you for the discourse and your support of libraries. I shall have to find out mor about the Sonny Bono Bill you refer to.

Thank you. -Ryan Curry

I’ll stand by my assessment of the Mao ad as racist–albeit almost surely not by intent. The man was a murderer. Why should a murderer of millions yellow people, even if he’s Chinese himself, be treated differently from a murderer of white people? Mao wasn’t racist against his own race. But in my opinion it is racist to run an ad that trivializes the murders. Once again, I am not saying: “Here’s proof that MPL, the Friends group or the people at the Andrews/Birt agency were deliberately racist.” I lack ESP but highly doubt it! I’m just concerned about the implications of the ad.

Meanwhile thanks again to Ryan for the dialog. I’m utterly convinced of his good intentions.

Detail: Notice what Ryan says about writing to newspapers? I agree, and others would too. People hate to have their thoughts edited. I’d love to see newspapers print edited versions of letters to the editor but also let readers go on the Net to see the “raw” versions (within the limits of libel laws). Newspapers, in fact, should publish spill-over op-eds on the Net. The “no space” argument just won’t fly in this era of an infinitely expandable Web.