Hello, I'm Chris Kane on this edition of Arkansas Week.

Efforts to bridge Partizan political and social divides.

The Arkansas Alliance of the national nonprofit Braver Angels aims to reduce political polarization through civil and respectful dialog.

Well, hopefully changing how people view those with differing political views.

That's coming up later in the program.

But first, the state's libraries were an important issue during the last legislative session.

And though we may have various perspectives on how they operate, the central common goal is to educate.

In addition to the vast array of free books and informational resources they offer, libraries expose individuals to educational programs that promote literacy and learning, provide access to digital technology, and foster engagement within communities.

To discuss the importance of our public libraries, we have law professor Robert Steinberg, State Senator Dan Sullivan, and Central Arkansas Library System Director Nate Colter.

Let's take a look.

Welcome.

I'm Robert Steinberg.

I'm a law professor and a columnist for the Democrat Gazette.

I have two wonderful guests with me here today.

First, Nate Colter, who is the director of the Central Arkansas Library System.

Welcome, Nate.

Thank you.

Rob.

And of course, Dan Sullivan, who's the state senator from Jonesboro and Bono.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Glad to be here.

We're going to be talking about libraries, folks.

And of course, you're a director of, the biggest library in the state, biggest library system in the state.

And you wrote, now a well known law regarding libraries, two components of which I've created some controversy, in fact, one that prohibits the libraries from furnishing items to minors that are unsuitable to them, and another that requires libraries to adopt policies on book selection, relocation, retention, and puts that ultimate authority in the hands of local government.

And that has given rise to a lawsuit.

And KAOS is involved in that lawsuit.

I don't want to talk directly about the lawsuit, but I want to talk about the broader issues involved in libraries and and the debate that's going on today.

And my first question is a general question.

What do you view the role of a public library?

Why do we have public libraries?

We don't have public movie theaters.

Should we have public libraries?

I suspect as the director of what the answer is going to be yes from you, Nate, but I'll let you answer that first.

Thanks.

Yes.

The answer is the short answer is yes.

And I think it is a uniquely American institution.

There were libraries long before, in the late 19th century, some Americans decided, there's some debate, arguing cities argue who was first, that we will take public money and we will buy books and materials, and then we'll let those circulate before that, people in private libraries and you could pay a subscription fee like you might pay to have Netflix on your television streaming, and you could use the content that way.

We decided in the second half of the 19th century, as a country, that we would have a public library funded by public dollars, and my my conviction is that that's a good thing.

It helps people have access to resources they might not otherwise have access.

It also just encourages literacy and education.

I know this is a big proponent in the General Assembly.

We need to do more in Arkansas.

I'm from Nashville.

He's from Bono.

Sometimes people don't get enough emphasis on the importance of learning and real literacy for their children.

The library's always been a central part of that.

So yes, I think it has an important function.

It provides some sort of, I think, some sort of scaffolding support for self-governing.

It teaches people about our institutions, our civics.

You know, we're not any of us, I'm sure, very proud about the lack of civic awareness.

If you went to Craighead County and said, tell us who all the state senators are in the Craighead County, on the walk to the parking lot at Walmart, I'm not confident that everybody would know.

I wish they I can say they do.

And it's no reflection on the senator here.

He's got a high profile, but I just think we at the library can do things to encourage children to read, help families who need that, help teachers who need that help, and encourage people to be participating in the civic duties of their, local government and bigger government than most of the funding for libraries comes from the local level.

But of course, the state has a role.

And so you as a state senator have a role in making that decision.

So what's your view of the public purpose of libraries?

Yeah, absolutely.

The libraries were instituted to help educate the populace regardless of your economic status.

You had everyone had access to the same information, and that's what people use it for today.

You know, the, having internet access, computers, having books on all kinds of subjects allows people to be educated and they control, the information they access, not the government, not anybody else.

They control it.

They have access to all kinds of information.

Nate, I was reading on the, American Library Association website.

They say that, of course, the librarians every day make decisions about what books to buy, what books that they have decided to call to remove.

They get old.

Weeding is the word.

I live in the library.

But then on the same website and I realize you are not the American Library Association, but I want to put to you their views and get your reaction.

They suggest that if anybody else is making that decision, members of the community, the legislature, they use words like censure or ban, it strikes me as a difficult position where the librarians get to make these decisions.

That's always appropriate and seemingly inappropriate if anybody else makes those decisions.

Is there a little more nuance to be had there?

I think so, I think the the issue as I see it, and I'm a member of the Ala, but I don't, cut into everything.

The Ala Alpha might, articulator be, on record holding a view.

I think the issue is who has the time and the sort of granular expertise to make these decisions.

My sense is that most local elected officials don't want to be bothered with doing that, partly because it's controversial at some levels.

There are certain books we can all agree that books about how to raise, certain kinds of flowers that you might have an interest in, those are good.

We can all agree that certain things broadly speaking, about our history and, you know, picture books that teach kids about World War Two.

Good.

But we get out on the edges and things become more controversial.

I don't think local elected officials one worth the headache, the controversy that sometimes associated with those materials.

And I also don't think they have the sort of background aptitude or not steeped in the details to know the librarians professional, everyone's get paid to do that.

There is accountability if they go way off the rails or if they don't buy books that are being demanded in that community, then there will be some accountability.

First of all, the library boards are typically appointed by elected officials and there's also the funding.

The senator knows well that funding is ultimately he he who controls the purse controls a lot of things about the policy.

So the library's wondering often things that the community doesn't want or the library's doing things that the community just thinks are not appropriate.

Then there will be some feedback.

And I think that is the hope.

That's the key to accountability, rather than having people who don't do this for a living.

There's a lot of content out there.

And you're right, buying the books is, first of all, what are the steps in our libraries?

We have four of them who do this work, and that's all they do.

They read all sorts of industry publications, theoretically objective, not publishers, but the industry materials.

They decide what the community wants.

They know certain books are extremely popular.

Sometimes those books can be, edgy.

They're not things I read, things like 50 Shades of Gray.

Those are in big demand.

So we we collect those.

If they don't get read, they get weeded.

So there is that local input by the people who do it for a living.

Then let me pick up on something that Nate said, but also pose a question to you related to the first one that I posed to Nate, which is there are some in the conservative community who would like to have certain books removed from the library, and I'm not talking about for kids.

We'll get to that topic.

But for adults, controversial topics from their viewpoint.

What's your view on having certain groups dictate to libraries?

A desire not to have particular topics covered in the library because of their political or religious beliefs?

Yeah.

The, you know, Constitution spoke to this early on when our government was formed, that government was instituted by the people.

For the people, and those people are elected.

Bureaucrats aren't elected.

So if we have bureaucrats making critical decisions that agree with Nate, most books there's no issue with, we get it out there on the fringes.

Both sides, have some extreme views, and decisions have to be made.

And the final accountability should rest with elected officials, not bureaucrats.

And you mentioned the legislation that was, proposed and challenged.

And that's essentially what the legislation says is that it doesn't end with the American Library Association.

It doesn't end with the local county library board.

It should end with elected officials.

I agree with Nate.

They don't want any part of it.

And most of the time they were not necessarily for that legislation because they are accountable.

But the reality is, according to our system of government, elected officials should be accountable for the decisions they make, not bureaucrats.

And I think if you read many of the bylaws from the Ala on down through local, governance library boards, it says, and many times they have the final decision.

I disagree with that.

It should be rested, rest with the local officials.

Nate, we talked about books and content like that.

Libraries now are meeting places as well.

And that's a good function, I believe.

But it has also created some controversy.

We have the so-called drag queen story hours, and I don't know if these were sponsored by libraries or these were private, rentals of space and libraries.

But talk to us about this issue.

How involved should libraries be in sort of hosting highly controversial issues?

I think in most instances the former of your to the libraries have sponsored programs that were deemed drag queen storytime and those were controversial.

As far as I'm aware, I know in my library system we have 15 libraries.

There has been no drag queen storytime.

That said, your broad question is, I think, an important one.

Typically, libraries say we'll take all comers if they're just saying we have a space.

We had a we have a nice theater.

You've probably been in it.

And some people complained recently to me about there was an outside party that had rented, paid the rental fee and had a program there called, Real Queer Film Festival.

I think obviously that's gonna be controversial.

We didn't put that program on.

We didn't sponsor that.

But we had this venue.

And if people want to use it and they can pay it, and so and so we we let them do it and we don't sort that out.

Just like our meeting rooms.

We'll have meeting, we'll have meetings somewhere today in my library of people who are self-identified Republicans.

So don't invite Democrats.

We'll have groups of all sorts in the meeting spaces available.

We let people do it.

We sponsor things that we think are in demand.

We'll provide some content, and we don't go out of our way looking for things that are going to evoke controversy.

That's why we have not had drag queen story time.

Perhaps.

Then do you think things like the drag queen story, our, is a step too far for our community library?

Well, you know, that's, we have 75 counties in the state, and we have 75 different views on what is appropriate and inappropriate.

And I think that's a good thing.

And the library boards should be representative of their constituency, and they should make decisions based upon those criteria.

And that's going to vary widely.

It's one of the reasons I think our local, city councils and quorum courts need to step in.

It's unfortunate that and this incident happened because the local people couldn't compromise.

They couldn't work together.

Neither side, and that is that when the court steps in or the public steps in and cuts the funding, as Nate said, the funding is the core and if the if the people get too far off, the library boards get too far off, somebody is going to step in.

In Craighead County's case, it was the funding got diminished greatly, which is unfortunate.

Or the court step in if it goes too far.

So again, I think to sum it up, the local authorities in each county need to be the judges on what's appropriate and inappropriate.

But let me let me go ahead.

And we only have 30s.

I'm I'm proud to be today.

And I'm proud to show that even though the Senate, I have vigorous disagreements about that statute.

We can talk about this respectfully, and I do respect him.

The problem he's just identified is in that statute.

It doesn't give the local officials what I stand or what how to determine what's appropriate.

Well, there's two things in Crawford County.

The lawsuit was last.

The county judge.

What do you think is appropriate?

He gave the answer that most people.

It depends on who you ask.

That's the problem.

When you don't have the criteria in front of the elected officials.

And then again, they don't want to go through the criteria.

The statute didn't give them any standard to deter what's appropriate.

I guess we'll see what the court says about that.

Indeed, indeed we will.

Well, gentlemen, thank you so very much.

It sounds like this is a conversation we need to continue.

And we will.

I appreciate the opportunity and we should continue the conversation today.

Thanks, PBS, for delving into issues like this and bringing this before the public.

And thank you, professor Opportunity for leading, the discussion on this topic.

He's been talking about it, writing about it for quite a while.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

And thank you.

Welcome back to help bring people together across political and social divides, the Arkansas Alliance of the national nonprofit Braver Angels works to reduce polarization through open, respectful conversations.

The goal is to change how we see and talk to those with different political views.

Joining us today, Doctor Glenn White and Doctor April Chatham Carpenter, co-hosts of the On the Other Hand podcast sponsored by Braver Angels Arkansas.

And they're going to share a little bit more about the work and the impact of these conversations.

And I really enjoyed listening to a few of the interviews that you guys did.

Glenn will start with, you just kind of set the table how, for those who aren't familiar, how did this get started?

Tell us about Braver Angels of Arkansas.

Well, Braver Angels of Arkansas actually comes from it's an alliance of the national organization Braver Angels.

They started in 2016 around that presidential election because people were very concerned about the impact of the increasing political polarization in the country, because that's the kind of thing that's been shown to be damaging to democratic governments.

And so they thought they needed to do something.

April can tell us more about that.

But basically that's how it started.

And then Braver Angels, Arkansas, I got an interested in it very early on and learned about, you know, the Braver Angels organization.

So I got started and enjoyed it and kind of helped get it started in Arkansas.

April, what used to be called Better Angels, but that term was actually copyrighted, but it was named after President Lincoln speech, in which he talked about better angels of our character, that we could all become better angels.

And then they changed it to braver angels.

Because really, what we're all about is helping to cultivate and practice courageous conversations.

What does that look like here in Arkansas, when you're talking about the current political climate nationally and even some locally as well, although much less than we see on the national stage, and we see that divide.

How does that work here in Arkansas?

Yeah.

So in Arkansas, you know, we are, you know, almost a one party state.

At times people would say that although in some of our metropolitan areas, there are other kinds of leanings of more progressive leanings.

And so one of the things that we do in Braver Angels is we connect, both progressive and conservative people together, or sometimes we'll call them blue and red.

Right.

Glenn and I actually represent those two perspectives, and we are learning to talk to each other.

We're learning to listen to the stories of the other people so that we aren't just judging them as the enemies and realizing that we can work together over our across our political divides.

And that's what we want to do, is to get people to talk to each other.

Right now, a lot of people are very afraid to do that.

We try to teach things that help people have that conversation and kind of keep it between the ditches.

And when you do that, you start to find that people aren't quite the ogre that we thought they were, even though they have very different views.

How much of the social media, universe has contributed or are in, you know, brought about more division and how do you try and push that aside and get people to talk to one another?

Like you just said, it's been huge.

I mean, I think about my own relationship with a family member in particular.

I'm not going to mention who it is.

But, I would end up having to block this family member because of the things that she would post on social media.

And I finally said, I need to actually have a conversation with her about some of the things that she's saying so I can get to understand a little bit more about their perspective and the story behind the story.

And, you know, social media is so person blind.

We can post anything.

We don't have to be responsible or accountable for what we post.

So it really exacerbates the problem.

There are a lot of, things that impact polarization.

And to some degree, polarization has been with us throughout history.

But in these modern times, with the internet and many sources of news and journalism, it and social media, it is just kind of it's been like a steroid shot into misinformation and polarization and division.

So that's that's a big thing we're fighting against.

What are some of the outcomes you're hoping you see with these open conversations?

We hope people will talk to each other and have a little more courage to say, I can do this, and it'll be okay.

That's one of the things we hope.

And if we do and people find out that other people aren't as bad as they thought they may still disagree.

We expect them to disagree, but we expect them also to found out there are some things they have in common.

There are a few things they do agree on, and that's really important in a democratic form of government.

The only way a democratic form of government works is through compromise.

So if you have people with different ideas, you have to have people willing to sit down together, find those common areas of interests, and solve some problems that otherwise go unsolved.

April.

Whenever it comes to some of the guests, you bring on, what are some of the things that you've learned as you have navigated this with Glenn, and you all have created a platform for different viewpoints to be shared.

And like Glenn mentioned, maybe you don't change complete perspectives, but at least you open someone's mind to not feeling like the person on the other side is completely different from me.

Clinton you know this, on the other hand, podcast that we do together was really Glenn's baby, and one of the things that he was hoping when he started it was to get us to be able to actually show that we could have these civil conversations.

As I came in on it, I realized that we don't have examples, exemplars of people who actually are working across the divide.

And we need to invite people on that actually are doing the hard work that we're trying to tell people that can be done.

So we almost always will start with a question that talks about their background, that talks about their growing up years so that people can start visualizing them as a human being, not just the position that they might take on a particular issue.

And all of a sudden it's like, oh, that's who you are.

Interesting.

And we also ask them typically about their values.

What are the values that underlie on their political leanings.

And that helps us understand a lot more about why they are where they are.

And we also hear something about their early biographical information that gives us some hints as well.

And the podcast being, you know, kind of an idea.

You had to create this platform.

Have you seen some example of guests that have come on that where you've felt like, wow, I think that person really, you know, they were a little more vulnerable.

They opened their doors a little bit to let people in and let in get to know them and probably to, you know, there's been some surprises on this podcast along the way where you go, I didn't know that about that person because of the public persona or the public leanings that maybe people had about that.

Absolutely.

That we would get people all the time.

That surprises, some people that we think, okay, they represent this extreme on one end and they have some of that, but they also have some other things that are more representative of the other end.

And the lesson there is true for all of us that we each have something we're complicated people who don't always have the same party line we stick to.

If you do that, you're really just being tribal and not going by your values.

We can't put people into boxes.

I mean, I am so much more than a conservative.

I am all kinds of identities.

And so if you just put me in one box or Glenn as a progressive into one box, then you're going to assume that we are a certain way.

But we are so much more than that, and we actually might agree on a lot of things if we were having a conversation.

We agree upon a lot of things.

We've had some things where we programs where she and I talk about from a red and blue perspective about things, and we wound up at the end having more that we agree with and that we disagree with.

How much of it, though, does it change when you're talking with someone and disagreements come about as opposed to if it's behind a computer screen or a phone screen, where disagreements seem to kind of get shouted into the, you know, the online sphere, right?

Whereas when you're with someone, have you noticed that there's more of a, a direction to resolution where you're not?

You have to agree to disagree eventually.

Otherwise you're going to sit.

You can't just sit there and yell at it.

There's a desire for relationship, and that is so key and kind of underlying everything that we do at River angels in general.

But River Angels in Arkansas in particular.

And and when I am not seeing the other person, I can't see their reactions.

I can't see their nonverbal communication.

I can't see that I've touched a pain point that I've I've what I've said just actually caused them to kind of react.

How do I know how I'm supposed to communicate with them?

So the, you know, when you don't have all of those channels of communication, it's really difficult not to have decent, you know, disagreements or misunderstandings.

I think it also being face to face with people has an inhibiting effect on some of the worst parts of our nature.

And if you're behind a computer screen with someone that is a long way away or you don't even know them, it's so much easier to dehumanize them and treat them in a bad way.

So it is a big factor.

All right, before we let you go, what are some words you have for those out there who may have experienced things like like we all have really, but like you were talking about April, where you know, you're having disagreements online with someone, what's the best way to start that dialog, to get that conversation and to hopefully get to a resolution of some sort?

You know, one of the things we teach in our workshops, and I would love for people who are listening to this, by the way, to just reach out to Braver Angels, Arkansas and, and have us do a workshop or presentation from for them.

But one of the things we teach in our workshop is a skill called the lap skills.

Listening, acknowledging what the other person is saying before I ever even present my perspective, pivot and ask for permission to share my perspective.

And that has been huge in my personal life.

Not just about political discussions, but about any kind of difficult conversations that I'm getting ready to have is taking the time to have a learning conversation before I ever try to give my perspective on the issue.

So we really do encourage people.

If you have a group or a church or your college class, any organization that's interested in this problem, polarization, contact us.

The best way to do it is just look at our website which is Arkansas Dot Braver angels.org, and we have lots of information there about what we do.

We've got contact information.

We can come and speak to a group.

And we can tell them just general things about our organization and polarization or do one of the workshops where we teach those communication and conflict resolution skills.

There are even some things that, we can do that involved their experience or workshops where people from different sides have a chance to talk with each other.

But it's always done in a way.

It's very structured format, so that we take care that things, are handled in a good, positive way.

And in the process, people develop a little bit more of a relationship and are surprised at, you know, this other person in this other group.

All right.

Only about 30s left.

Dream guest I'll start with you.

Dream guest.

To get on the podcast, who would it be?

Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, Sarah Huckabee Sanders there you go from both sides of the aisle.

Doctor Glenn White and Doctor April Chatham Carpenter.

They're co-hosts of the On the Other Hand podcast.

You can find it on their website and wherever your podcasts are found.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

We really appreciate both of you, and we look forward to seeing you again here sometime soon.

Yeah.

Thank you for having us.

All right.

That is all the time we have for this week's edition of Arkansas Week.

I'm Chris Cain.

We hope to see you again next week.