I’ve been struggling with this — betting you have, too. So I found it heartening to read this sentence in a commentary on the topic: “So far, there seems to be no good playbook for navigating the new culture wars.”
That was made specifically in reference to recent developments in the retail world, as Target found itself in “the bulls-eye of the culture wars,” as one headline put it, followed by Kohl’s, which was all preceded by the kerfuffle of Bud Light’s marketing toe-dip into cultural issues. As the month of June has approached this year with its unofficial designation as “Pride Month,” companies have struggled to find a proper way to serve the diversity of their customers without offending someone. That’s a tough-enough assignment but apparently complicated by what I perceive to be a growing militancy on both sides of this “war.”
That in itself is such an unfortunate term. We can disagree and discuss and try to find common ground. But in today’s world it has to be a “war.” Hence, the term “militancy” fits — meant to describe an increase of intolerance of intolerance. Or is it an increase of intolerance of tolerance? Or both.
“Target is facing growing criticism after it stopped selling certain items related to Gay Pride Month that offended some customers and social-media commentators,” one news story explained in late May, “a decision that prompted others to say the retailer had caved to pressure from anti-LGBTQ voices.” As a result, Target’s stock is down almost 20 percent since mid-May.
Similar displays of merchandise subsequently created problems for Kohl’s. That stock plunged more than 5 percent in one day after a social-media blitz called for a boycott.
Part of the puzzle is that these chains, along with Walmart, JCPenney and Gap, have sold this merchandise for years. Why is it such a problem now? From what I’ve read, the displays are in the adult clothing departments, not given any more prominence than other seasonal merchandise.
And if you’ve been under an assumption (or perhaps, a hope) that these cultural wars are only “fought” in the larger cities or on the coasts, you’ve not been paying attention. River City is on the front lines.
We’ve had a local elected official advocate for the removal of the “inclusive community” signs that welcome people to Bluffton. There was the dust-up in late 2021 when a local teacher displayed a rainbow flag in her classroom. And now the LGBTQ issue has triggered a review of what and how our local public library can display the books in its collection.
Just as in the retail stores, there has been a display informing patrons about the books the library offers regarding LGBTQ issues for several years. Not every year, I am told, but often. I understand that there had been a question raised by a patron last year — one who had heard a concern but had not seen it. The patron emailed the head librarian, whom he knows, who took a photo of the display and sent it back to the patron who expressed no further concern. That is the photo we used in our report about the controversy last week.
Did that display, which included a small poster that “June is Pride Month,” “celebrate” that or just inform? Is the library “celebrating” Mental Health Month in May when it displays books that are helpful for adults and families dealing with that? Note that these displays are upstairs in the adult section, not in or near the front entrance or the children’s department.
Like many things these days, this strikes me as a solution looking for a problem. But I will quickly add that there appears to be an opportunity for potential problems that a better-defined “Information Display Policy” could avoid, which is the policy the library board has put under review.
The wording proposed at the board’s May meeting, however, raises some questions. As I read it, it specifically addresses displays and exhibits “when not related to library materials.” It does not specify any limitations on “library-related material.” While that was questioned during the May 9 meeting, it will be helpful to get clarification as the board continues its discussion.
And now, this past week’s developments demonstrate how complicated and confusing these wars can be. Some observations:
• To be frank, our headline Tuesday should have at least had “Rainbow bracelets” in quotations marks, indicating a term used by others, not as a factual description of the bracelets in question, which were described in the article as “rainbow-colored” and “multi-colored.”
• Somehow, we have allowed rainbows — along with the term “unity” and its relatives — to be confiscated as a cultural weapon. This is not unlike the very true and simple statement, “Black Lives Matter,” seized by a far-left group to use as a catch-phrase for a variety of their political causes.
Meanwhile, our youngest granddaughter loves to draw rainbows. Isn’t that a good thing?
Meanwhile, I have been working this week on our annual “Who We Are” special edition, which includes an update on the nascent LifeWise program in our three public school systems. The program allows parents to opt their children into a weekly class of Christian-based curriculum. The story includes a photo of a kindergarten student and a volunteer working on a craft project of — you guessed it — rainbows.
A rainbow has been the symbol of God’s promise. Now we argue over them. But then, I guess that’s really nothing new.
• Target stores feel like they’re in the bulls-eye? WCPL head librarian Sarah McNeill and her employees feel that way in spades. That’s more than understandable. From this perspective, they’re doing their job and doing just fine. Hang in there. This, too, shall pass.
However, lest we think all of this is much ado about nothing, libraries across the country have become targets in the wars. Take note that the Montana state legislature has felt it necessary to “ban people dressed in drag from reading books to children at public schools and libraries,” according to The Associated Press. Ugh. I remember seeing a story last year that as part of Pride Month, one of the downtown Fort Wayne churches hosted a “family-friendly drag show.” In my humble opinion, there is no such thing.
Let me be clear. I am all for inclusiveness. To not be inclusive means you are exclusive. That’s not us. That is not, I fervently hope, Bluffton and Wells County. I am all for acceptance. Live and let live — I have no problem with same-sex civil unions. But there is a huge difference between that and affirmation and validation. I want to be tolerant but there are some who find that intolerant. And others who want to test my tolerance by insisting I celebrate, affirm and validate their lifestyle.
Where is the middle ground between these two warring factions? It’s a struggle. There is no playbook.
miller@news-banner.com
