Over the past several days, a lot of librarians have contacted me regarding the post I wrote on white supremacists in libraries. While the overwhelming majority of the feedback has been positive, there has also been a distinct contingent of librarians who all agree that I am a BAD LIBRARIAN. Libraries are supposed to be neutral and we’re supposed to provide access to ALL sides of controversial issues. Well, let me tell you, I was hesitant at first, but thanks to the dogged persistence of some of my interlocutors and their impeccable logic, I hereby renounce everything I previously wrote. From here on out, I am going to be the most neutral librarian you’ve ever met. I now completely agree that the ALA Code of Ethics and the Library Bill of Rights are perfect documents and that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech is unassailable. I want to express my sincere thanks to everyone who pointed out how wrong I was in believing that libraries shouldn’t facilitate white supremacy.
Now, since I’m new to this whole “both-sidesism,” I’m obviously going to have some questions.
First, I notice that The Turner Diaries by William Pierce is only held by one library, according to Worldcat. Since it’s been hailed as “the Bible of the racist right” I’m deeply troubled that no libraries carry this obviously important text. Obviously, I’m going to buy it now that I’m committed to representing “both sides.” Should I spring for the print or the ebook?
Also, I’ve heard we’re in a “war with Islam.” Sadly, I haven’t added any ISIS propaganda to our library collection (like I said, I’ve been a bad librarian for not representing both sides). So, should my library link out to ISIS beheading videos or host them on our own servers? Again, just trying to be neutral.
Oh, and does it have to be a 1:1 ratio? For example, one holocaust denial book for every history of the holocaust? I’m thinking we may have to weed about 99% of our collection in the D800s to get a fair ratio. But, happy to do it to stay neutral.
And, could you please recommend some publishers in the following areas: alchemy, phrenology, flat earth theory, hollow earth theory, homeopathy, chemtrails, astrology, psychic surgery, and perpetual motion. I’ve noticed that our collections in the sciences are incredibly biased and fail to present both sides of understanding our natural world. (I can’t believe I used to think that truth should be a criterion for collection development.)
And, as an academic librarian, I’m curious how to handle faculty complaints. I’ve already sent out an email letting them know that from here on out we’re committed to presenting both sides of everything. How silly it was for me in the past to select materials based on the needs of my community, rather than the far more noble commitment to neutrality. So, now that faculty are angrily emailing me about spending their department allocations on “stupid shit” (LOL), how do I respond to their obvious biases? The Women’s Studies faculty are especially upset that I devoted half of their allocation to Mens Rights Activist books. I sent a copy of the Library Bill of Rights to them, but they don’t seem to get it. Any pointers?
Also, I have a research consultation Tuesday morning. The student is writing a paper about how “black people were better off during slavery.”* What resources would you recommend to help this student out?
Oh, and I forgot to tell you, a Mexican-American student emailed me earlier today with a question about her paper on DACA. Of course, I sent her both pro-Dreamer articles as well as articles from Breitbart and Infowars that show how illegal immigrants are mostly rapists and drug-addicts. For some reason, she got mad at me. Any suggestions on how to make her see the importance of considering multiple perspectives? (Scholarship is a Conversation, right?!)
And, the university film club has expressed an interest in screening Whose Streets?, the documentary about the Ferguson protests, in the library. Do I need to put together an anti-Black Lives Matter documentary screening in response?
As I pointed out in my previous post, we’ve never actually had a neo-Nazi or alt-right group ask to use our library for anything. Should I be doing outreach to these groups or should I just wait for them to initiate a request?
Thanks in advance for all your help!
Oh, and if you think that these questions are straw-men or pure hyperbole, then, please, let me know which white supremacist books and videos you’ve been buying.** Let me know which alt-right event you’ve sanctioned. Let me know on which issues you’ve nobly affirmed your neutrality. Thanks. Just trying to be the best librarian I can be.
* This was an actual consultation I had a few years ago.
** A quick note: I understand that massive research libraries with budgets in the tens of millions of dollars can collect almost everything and that they do probably collect some racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. materials. Likewise, if the library at, for example, a Holocaust memorial collects Holocaust-denial literature, there is a certain logic to that decision that I won’t deny. But, put yourself in the shoes of a small or mid-sized university library like mine; a small or mid-sized public. When you’re strapped for cash, how do you justify providing “both sides?”
** Re said research libraries … the justification isn’t “both sides” … it is more “somewhere this needs to be collected for a collective good and we’re the kind of place that does it. Very different than a “both sides” argument.
I agree. Quite a different rationale. Hence the footnote. I’m a proponent of Charles Osburn’s social transcript theory of libraries. 🙂
“Both sides” is problematic for so many reasons. A big one is the fallacy that there’s a “pro” and “con” argument to every issue. We know that issues are far more nuanced and probably have many different perspectives from many different stakeholder vantage points. But it also greatly simplifies what we do when we develop a collection. When I think about “neutrality” in collection development (as problematic as that word is), I think about not putting my own baggage (my own likes, dislikes, and beliefs) into my collection development work. If the only books I bought about modern politics reflected a far-left viewpoint, I would be doing a really crappy job. I’m mostly good at putting my own baggage aside, but we all have our weak spots (like keeping loads of old Russian literature even though no one has ever checked them out… BUT THEY WILL!!! ;-)). My goal in collection development is to help build a collection that meets the needs of our community and working towards that is far from neutral. I’ll bet that’s your goal too. That sometimes means buying books in areas I think are not true or beneficial — like crystal healing or cupping. That sometimes means buying books by or about people I despise. Would I buy books valued by neo-nazis? Sure, if my community needed/wanted it (I’m fortunate that the issue hasn’t and probably won’t come up). Would I buy pro-gun/anti-gun-control books? Of course and I have. Do we have books by climate change deniers? Yes! But I also make a point of buying diverse fiction, especially works that reflect the identities and lives of our students. I buy books that will help students be better informed about the issues that affect their lives. It’s not neutrality; it just shouldn’t be about you (the librarian).
I think the idea of going into buying materials for the collection with a goal of presenting the “truth” is deeply problematic and also (and this is the bigger issue) deeply subjective. It also feels very paternalistic. I argued with a colleague recently who wants to create a walled garden for students with books that we’ve signed off on being true, accurate, lacking in any plagiarism or fraud, etc. I don’t think that’s 1) achievable or 2) beneficial from an information literacy/teaching students to find and use info in the real world perspective. And then whose truth are we going to present? We don’t personally endorse every book in the collection, but we likely had reasons for buying them that related to the needs of our patrons.
I often wonder if people who talk about the goal of collection development being about creating a perfect balance of materials on “both sides” has actually engaged in collection development work. It’s one thing to ignore your own baggage, another entirely to ignore the needs and wants of your community.
Hi Meredith. I’m absolutely with you about ignoring your own baggage. I’m reminded of a story I read about ages ago, about a librarian up in Dearborn who only collected evangelical Christian literature for the religion section, despite having a Muslim-majority service area. I’m with you: it’s incumbent upon us to set aside our subjective preferences and consider the needs of the community. I try to do the same thing. I buy philosophy books I disagree with and books from religions I don’t follow all the time.
But, I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree with respect to the utility of truth in collection development. I place the importance of truth into two contexts. First, there’s the straightforward “2+2=4” kind of truth. Like, I know “the earth is round(ish)” is straightforwardly true and not a matter of subjective preference. So, materials supporting flat earth theories are prima facie misinformation and I won’t intentionally seek them out. However, there’s a second context to truth. A book by a flat-earther will convey a lot of false misinformation, but from it we can get the meta-textual truth: “flat earthers believe that the earth is flat.”
I’m always considering the role that truth plays in our collection, because I think library patrons are generally seeking out information and not misinformation. But are they looking for straightforward first-order truths like “the earth is round” or second-order meta-textual truths like the “scientists believe the earth is round?” This is where knowing the community comes in. I don’t see it as paternalistic to ignore flat-earth books when collecting for the geology program. But I’ll also buy flat-earth books for the sociologist research investigating why flat-earthers believe what they do. Truth is a factor in both decisions, just on different levels.
Two thoughts here:
A world of “both sides” would be boring. Just black and white. No grays, even. No colors. Solutions to problems rarely come from a “both sides” discourse. The only way to learn from that is to start to question “both sides”. Information literacy is in there somewhere.
A recent blog at Inside Higher Education suggested that before you enter the marketplace of ideas you should check that your idea is not bankrupt. I think of that when my neighbors and co-workers (in Northern New York) want to claim Confederate monuments and flags represent history or heritage, not hate or racism. “What is that history?” I want to ask. “What heritage? Can I tell you about the Southern heritage I’m passing on to my bi-racial sons?”
I guess another angle on this is that an equitable and fair balancing of ideas does not give all ideas equal weight. When we see this as a society then we become able to move forward.
This is going to make me sound like a first year library student and I’m sure there’s a smart answer that I’m just not getting, but I have to ask it anyway:
What if you work in a public library in small southern town, ultra conservative demographic in the majority and you want to order the book A Natural History of Homosexuality but your director won’t let you because it’s not a request from a patron and not something the general community at large would be interested in.
What if a small group of people want to use a meeting room in that same library to hold an open dialogue about LGBTQ issues in the community, but the director denies their request because they’re too concerned that the meeting will cause conflict and demonstrations at the library.
I’m asking only because I’ve experienced situations like this and the only thing that we could use to fight it was “we must work towards having a balanced collection, allow for intellectual freedom…bla bla bla.”
I also realize the simple answer is “just don’t hire biggoted library directors” but sometimes,in some communities, that’s hard to do.
Hi Carleen. This is an important question.I think for the librarian in the ultra-conservative town, it’s important to acknowledge that they may have barriers to collecting diverse literature. But, just as they may not be allowed to buy A Natural History of Homosexuality, they also don’t *have* to buy something like Prayers That Bring Change. Now, what if a patron requested Prayers That Bring Change? Depends on your collection policy I suppose. Are patron requests always approved without hesitation? This gets tricky and you may have to spring for the book anyway–53 libraries have it in WorldCat. I’ll confess that as a college librarian, I have a lot more control over my collection development and can easily reject a pray-the-gay-away book on the grounds that it’s misinformation. I think a public librarian would have far better insight here.
.
As to the director who denies services to an LGBT group, I think the director would be totally morally wrong. But, they might be able to get away with it legally. Are they in a state that allows public employees to discriminate on the basis of LGBT-status? Do they receive federal funding that may block such discrimination? And so on. Again, I think a public librarian would be the best to ask.
Maybe, that’s why this piece is irking me. It’s well written, seriously, I see the point for sarcasm, I was chuckling through most of it, definitely gets the point across and I’m inclined to agree on all points. But it’s lacking the complexity of dealing with this issue in a public library setting. I spent the first half my career using The Library Bill of Rights and Code of Ethics to fight for minority groups in a small closed minded town. I would start presentations and conversations with JFK’s quote. “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” I admitt, I was naive and obviously fresh out of grad school. I probably still am naive. But I think we also have to admitt that, especially after recent events over this past year, many of us have become a little afraid of our people. We’re afraid that they can’t judge truth and falsehood well enough anymore.
I’m not saying that we need to make it standard practice to purchase white supremecist literature or misinformation for a library. What I am saying is that I’m worried about a movement where librarians won’t purchased it because they are afraid of how our people, our community, will interpret it and use it. We can’t determine that and is it even our place to? I hate the idea of even having Mein Kampf in our collection, a primary source used for history courses, put definitely fits under white supremacists catagory. But not every student or person who pulls it off the shelf is going to become a white supremacist.
I’m not saying that librarians can’t take a stand against racism and hate. We most definitely should. Like B. Fister said “if we embrace fundamental values, we cannot be neutral.” To me, our physical collection shouldn’t be any more special then what people can access on the internet. They’ll find a whole world of white supremacist info online, so how does not having it in our print collection make that much of a difference? Our fight, shouldn’t be so focused on keeping the false information away from people. It should be more focused on vocalizing why the information is false to begin with and where factual information is found. That’s where I believe our fight should be.
The idea that there are two equally valid sides to each issue is a fallacy and a silly way to make this, rather snide, argument. Yes, you probably should have a book about Holocaust deniers in your collection, since they exist and folks might want to understand them. But, since there is such a vast amount of evidence to the contrary – the most damning being that of the perpetrators – there is no real need to promote their point of view. The same with white supremacists, climate change deniers and anti-vaxers. Being neutral is not the same as being credulous.
Thanks Annie. I’m glad you think it’a a rather “snide” argument. That’s the point of this post: to demonstrate that librarians defending white supremacist viewpoints on the grounds of neutrality are confusing neutrality for credulous and are committing themselves to defending all manner of other viewpoints. Ultimately, you and I agree: for a lot of viewpoints, “there is no real need to promote their point of view.”
Hi Annie, I wonder if librarians might usefully engage with journalists on this issue. In Australia, our national broadcaster is under enormous political pressure to be “balanced”. This balance is considered to be achieved when considered and knowledgeable contributions are offered alongside contributions dominated by falsehoods and personal prejudices. Journalists have been dealing with this kind of thing for a long time so they’re bound to have had insights useful to us.
So, you’re argument is that having white supremacist viewpoints in a collection is essentially promoting that viewpoint?
Carleen: No, I don’t think that libraries endorse the viewpoints of anything in their collection. But I do think that limited resources mean that we have to exercise some judgment about what we collect. And if we collect white supremacist literature (or holocaust denial or etc.) we are tacitly presenting it to our community as being just as informative as anything else on the shelves. And I think that does a community a disservice. There is a time and a place for libraries, under certain conditions, to collect misinformation and disinformation. But I don’t think we should collect misinformation as standard practice.
But you said you would collect flat earth books for the sociologists so that they could better understand the POV. People aren’t going to know your logic behind buying those books, so you’re still “tacitly presenting it to [y]our community as being just as informative as anything on the shelves.” I’m sure there are a lot of things in your collection you’d rather not present as being as “informative” as other things on your shelves. As a Jew whose relatives died in the Holocaust, I really don’t have a problem with buying Holocaust denial literature so long as it provides value to the community I’m serving (and understanding the “logic” of their arguments is providing value). But if I did buy that, it’s not like anyone who finds the book on the shelf would know the logic behind buying it. And that’s why we say that selection doesn’t imply endorsement in our collection development statement.
Meredith: I feel like we may be talking past one another. Of course I will collect mis- and disinformation under certain conditions. Like the Jewish Studies professor who wants to research Holocaust denial. I’ll buy him what he needs. The point I’m making has to do with collection development when left to my own devices. If I’ve got $6,000 a year to spend on religion books (which I do), I have to exercise some judgment. I can’t buy everything. I’ve got to consider the needs of my community. And since we have an educational aim, generally speaking, something being misinformative or disinformative–will count as a strike against it.
Somewhere in here I’ve lost track of when we get to empower our readers to do some informing for themselves.
[…] esteemed co-blogger’s twitter I came across and enjoyed this post by Lane Wilkinson on “Dealing with Both Sides in Your Library.” I liked it not just because I tend to agree with its general sentiments :re folks with […]
There has been a lot of discussion here about collections which is certainly important, but my thought provoking question is: how are patrons who want information on topics contrary to the view of the librarian treated? Is the student writing a paper opposed to gun control or for restrictions on immigration given the same level of support as those taking the contrary (more liberal) view?
I recall working with a class years ago in which an instructor told a student that they could not write about religion since there was no evidence to support it.
Ryan: Good observation. I think services are trickier than collections. The most egregious example I can remember was the student who needed reference help on a paper about how “black people were better off during slavery.” He had a few far-right blogs that he had found that made that point. I recall providing the same level of support I would as any other student. We looked through the scholarly literature together, tried different combinations of keywords, and showed pretty conclusively that the scholarly record didn’t support his research topic at all. So, he left with his handful of far-right blog posts.
Of course, that guy was extreme. I regularly help students with less extreme positions. I’ve helped students on all sides of same-sex marriage, gun control, death penalty, and other hot-button topics. But, I never just give students the things they want, like a document delivery service. I show them how to research their topic. I may harbor some hope that the student shares my beliefs, but whether they do or not doesn’t change that I’m going to show them how to look for the information they want. Then again, sometimes you do have to say “sorry, we looked, and there’s nothing credible to back up your thesis.” I never lecture students on my beliefs. They ask for help finding the research, and I show them where it is. They can make up their minds themselves.
I think students should be free to explore whatever topic they want. But, I also think that some topics are too flawed to lead anywhere. As a librarian, I’m going to help every student access the information they need for their research–though it isn’t always the information they want.
What a dick-headed column
Best comment yet.
Fabulous post Lane & very interesting discussion – I’m going to start following your blog :-). I wonder if (we as librarians) had a history of identifying as supporters of knowledge creation & knowledge sharing, rather than of providers of information access, we might have another way to start thinking about this critical topic. It seems to me that, at its core, here we have a discussion about confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is something that human brains naturally pursue. Some humans are open to trying to be aware of their biases & seek to challenge them, others seek to strengthen & further confirm their biases, & others seek to understand the biases expressed & experienced in our world.
Librarians get to deal with the issues discussed here because librarianship is a people-centric profession not an information-centric profession. In a people-centric & knowledge-centric profession the “bad librarian” judgement is simply an irrelevancy – the librarian is simply dealing with the reality of working with human beings within the budgetary, organisational, social, etc constraints that abound in a complex environment.
That complexity deepens further because we are also human beings & often knowledge comes with deep emotions (like hate that repulses many of us to the very core of our being). Perhaps some/many of us look to “neutrality” or “both side-ism” because we aren’t truly equipped to deal with the humanity of what it is we do?
The Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000 required that libraries receiving Federal funding to put filters on their public computers to protect children from pornography and obscene material. Many public libraries — and the University Library that I worked for at the time, which was associated with a PL — vigorously fought against Internet filters as a restriction on the freedom to read in libraries.
Today, my library doesn’t have the Turner Diaries on the shelves, but it is possible to use our public computers to find and read a free copy online (and great deal of ISIS propaganda too).
Back in the past, before you were converted to neutrality would you have supported the use of filters to make sure that library computers were only used to access materials consistent with the needs of your community?
John: I don’t support the use of any filters on library computers. If someone wants to read the Turner Diaries online using a library computer, that’s within their rights. We don’t have filters. Maybe once a semester I have to tell someone to quit watching porn. And once I got a complaint that someone was watching a beheading video. But, generally speaking, I don’t know what people are doing at our computers and I don’t really care to know.
My concern is more to do with making decisions that involve limited resources. And purchasing the Turner Diaries simply to appear “neutral” would be a poor use of my limited collection development budget. I stand by the last paragraph in the post: if librarians are going to insist on how wrong I am (not that you are), then I’d like them to give me a list of recommended white supremacist books that they’ve purchased.
(I apologize if this is a dup — not sure if the first one posted)
So, I don’t know if you are wrong. I am struggling with neutrality myself.
But I don’t think that the neutrality enjoined by the Library Bill of Rights, which says “Materials should not be ‘excluded’ because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation,” leads to the “both-sidesism” that you describe in your post.
For example, my library doesn’t have the Turner Diaries now, but I’d buy it if it were to contribute to the research agenda of a faculty member. Say, we hired a professor who studies and teaches the origins of right wing ideology — an important topic these days IMHO. If she/he recommended the Turner Dairies as a document that helps students understand the nature of right-wing thought, I’d buy it. I definitely wouldn’t say “Sorry Professor, I won’t allow that kind of crap in my library. I can’t let the impressionable young minds of our students be influenced by those racist lies.”
In that sense, I think that the Library Bill of Rights describes my intuitive understanding of my responsibilities as a librarian. As long as I am not building a collection to promote my own political or social agenda and not choosing to “exclude” material that I dislike b/c I dislike it, I don’t think that neutrality implicit in the Library Bill of Rights requires librarians to use our limited resources to go out there and give equal time to all of the crazy ideas being expressed.
Lane,
Your column here illustrates that a concern for truth is essential to what we do as librarians.
And yet, as I pointed out in a recent blog post, “Wilkinson says that “[the authority is constructed and contextual frame] deals with cognitive authority, which deals… with trust and credibility… Being an expert is having a certain body of knowledge or know-how; being an authority is having credibility within a sphere of influence independently of knowledge or know-how. It’s all in the context.”
So, basically, what this says to me is that if you can get a bunch of persons to trust you, you have credibility which translates to authority. : )
Now I know I am oversimplifying your more well-thought out views, but I state it that way to make a point. After all, successful quacks and con artists and genuinely misled but persuasive persons exist, and this means that cultural (including intellectual culture) and political influence and power cannot be strictly synonymous with credibility and authority.
Would you be willing to explain in terms laypeople can understand why this doesn’t leave most notions of truth they might be familiar with out in the cold? Why is truth not an important concept to deal with in the Framework?
-Nathan
Nathan: I’m afraid I can’t explain the view you’re attributing to me. Mostly because I don’t understand what view you’re trying to attribute. Are you asking me to clarify that authority and expertise are not synonymous? That some authorities are not experts? That’s absolutely true. Quick example: To my kids, I’m an authority on science because I am way more knowledgeable than they are and they trust me. But, objectively speaking, I’m not an expert in any scientific field. Authority is relative to a sphere of influence; expertise is not relative to a sphere of influence. Do I wish all authorities were experts? Of course. I always want people to seek out expertise. But wishing won’t make it so. And I don’t see what this has to do with people’s notions of truth or the ACRL Framework.
Lane,
I think its clear that the AiCC frame does not deal only with credibility (more below). And while there is not a 1:1 correspondence between expertise and authority (I agree there is “cognitive authority” we can speak about psychologically and sociologically but for it to be real authority, it must be grounded), one can’t escape this relationship between authority and expertise. As I said in one of my papers about AiCC, “The words ‘expertise’ and ‘credibility’ [right in the first sentence of the main explanation] are clearly intended to dovetail with the concept of authority, and the meaning of both words can be easily understood in this context. The correlation with expertise in particular suggests a requisite theoretical and/or practical knowledge of (i.e. “know that” and “know how”) the matter or thing one’s authority concerns (increasing one’s credibility).” And when one talks about knowledge, by your own accounting of things (i.e. your upholding in your NJWtC chapter the classical definition of knowledge), you are talking about the matter of truth.
I put forward an alternative frame to AiCC on my blog. I’m guessing you haven’t seen it. I’m not saying its perfect, but I’d love to get your critique of it:
Issues of Authority are Contextual and Nuanced
Sources of information are evaluated based on their knowledge and credibility as well as the information needs of users. Issues of authority are contextual in that the information need may help determine the level of authority required. They are nuanced in that societal position or status may not go hand-in-hand with authoritative speech – i.e. words in accordance with truth.
Not only scholars, but all persons seek those who trust we can begin to know some things about what is the case about our lives and the world – particularly when careful and disciplined efforts are made. Truth, therefore, is in part that which is not wholly individualistic and which can create new understandings in and between persons. Relatedly, authority can be defined as the ability to influence and persuade resulting from knowledge and experience. Ideally, those able to influence and persuade apart from much knowledge—that is, apart from much justified true belief—would not be able to receive or earn recognized positional authority. Successful quacks and con artists exist however, and this means that cultural and political influence and power cannot be strictly synonymous with credibility and authority. The need to tell the truth, seek what is really true, and to be true, must be encouraged. This includes examination of one’s own hidden and conscious biases and assumptions, whether or not these are ultimately determined to be desirable or undesirable. In sum, beginning learners should come to respect those in positions of authority while recognizing that authoritative speaking—i.e. that which is in accordance with truth—may come from elsewhere. Students should both seek voices widely recognized as authoritative and note that they may need to reason with unlikely voices that possess relevant knowledge – perhaps from different classes, races, nationalities, creeds, religions, etc.
-Nathan
Lane, I’ve never worked with you, but from what I can tell, you’re a GOOD LIBRARIAN.
Thanks JWM
[…] the former carries with it, various problems, like the issues of Nazis in the library or other bigoted individuals, which none of his blogs, that I found, ever address. The closest he gets to this is focusing on […]