[Libs-Or] February 2021 Tuesday Topic: Collection Development and harmful literature

[Steve Silver]

Welcome to Tuesday Topics, a monthly series covering topics with
intellectual freedom implications for libraries of all types. Each message
is prepared by a member of OLA's Intellectual Freedom Committee or a guest
writer. Questions can be directed to the author of the topic or to the IFC
Committee.



There has been a great deal of controversy recently concerning the
book Irreversible
damage <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1230543484> by Abigail Shrier. To
understand the controversy one only has to read the subtitle: The
transgender craze seducing our daughters. One can find a quick overview of
the book and links to reviews from various sources, both positive and
critical, on its Wikipedia page
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_Damage>. The Economist and The
Times of London named it a best book of the year. Jack Turban, a
psychiatrist specializing in transgender mental health, writing in Psychology
Today
<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation>,
said the book was “full of misinformation” with the “potential to hurt
transgender youth.”


Likely spurred by the significant attention the book has received in both
conservative and progressive media, public libraries have received patron
requests to purchase the book. This has been followed by patron challenges
to have the book removed, based on the perceived potential harm to
gender-questioning teens. This led at least one library staff member in an
Oregon library to question how collection development policies could be
written to preclude purchasing such potentially harmful books in the first
place, even if requested by patrons.


This, of course, begs the question of whether collection development
policies SHOULD be written to exclude purchasing books perceived to be
potentially harmful. Longstanding ALA policy as stated in the Library Bill
of Rights <http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill> is that
“Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or
views of those contributing to their creation” (Article 1), and “Materials
should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal
disapproval” (Article 2). The first half of each of those articles affirm
that libraries should provide resources “...for the interest, information,
and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves”
(emphasis added), and “...should provide materials and information
presenting all points of view on current and historical issues.” In other
words, if the topic is current, and if members of your community are
interested in the resource, the library has a certain obligation to acquire
the resource. Both questions seem to be a clear ‘yes’ in this instance. The
library’s or librarian’s personal views regarding the value - or potential
harm - of the resource should not be a factor (see Diverse collections: an
interpretation of the library bill of rights
<http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/diversecollections>
and the ALA Code of ethics <http://www.ala.org/tools/ethics>). Indeed, some
of those critical of this book’s content have in fact argued against
proscribing or censoring it. Jonathan Zimmerman, writing in the Chicago
Tribune
<https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-censorship-cancel-culture-abigail-shrier-transgender-20201123-sifw7khysrdpnbnj66qxp6yiam-story.html>,
makes the simple argument that “[w]hen censorship wins, minorities lose.”
He believes that attempts to censor Shrier’s book will “backfire” and end
up hurting the transgender community more than helping. One transgender
librarian who was asked to comment on this book made a point of the value
of keeping such “‘harmful’ texts available and build[ing] context around
them.”


At the same time, there is a growing movement within librarianship (often,
but not exclusively, grouped under the moniker “critical librarianship,” or
#critlib <http://critlib.org/about/>) that is “...dedicated to bringing
social justice principles into our work in libraries….Recognizing that we
all work under...a range of structural inequalities.” As some have argued
(e.g. Jennifer Ferretti
<https://medium.com/@CityThatReads/neutrality-is-hostility-the-impact-of-false-neutrality-in-academic-librarianship-c0755879fb09>
and Eino Sierpe
<https://journal.radicallibrarianship.org/index.php/journal/article/view/39>),
the “neutrality” espoused in ALA’s policies as noted above only works to
maintain an unjust status quo. Typically this is stated in terms of a white
supremacist status quo, but the argument could be equally applicable to any
of the social justice issues present in our current climate, including the
acceptance and representation of transgender folk. In this view, libraries
do, in fact, have an obligation to proactively support and even protect
marginalized communities, such as transgender folk. Intentionally NOT
acquiring books such as Irreversible damage, despite community requests to
do so, is seen as a positive step in dismantling “structural inequalities.”
These writers would argue that libraries should not be giving tacit support
to racist or transphobic views by acquiring those resources, even if
community members are requesting them. Such works, in this view, can do
actual harm to these marginalized communities, so for the sake of such
communities should not be present in the library.


Predictably, such critical questioning of established core library values
has met some pushback. Em Claire Knowles, for example, in a 2018 blog
article
<http://slis.simmons.edu/blogs/emclaireknowles-publications/2018/03/26/can-libraries-be-neutral-should-they-strive-to-be-neutral/>,
posits that “neutrality” is and should be “active,” not “passive,” and that
such an understanding and practice of neutrality actually works for social
justice, not against it. Whether this view is a doubling down on
maintaining an inherently unjust status quo or an honest and nuanced
attempt to chart a third path perhaps remains to be seen.


All of which informs, but perhaps does little to actually answer, our very
practical question: Should collection development policies be written in
such a way to exclude materials perceived as harmful to marginalized
communities? One very real consideration is that doing so in any way that
targets specific viewpoints or theories is very likely to be found
unconstitutional (private institutions have a bit more leeway here, but as
a general principle adhering to First Amendment considerations is probably
still ideal). A policy that is general enough to equally apply to any and
all viewpoints, and thus could pass constitutional muster, likely leaves
itself open to being applied in ways that were not initially intended. As
Zimmerman points out, such attempts at censoring are nearly always co-opted
by the dominant culture and used against the very minorities the policy was
intended to protect. Giving some primacy of consideration to protecting
free expression seems prudent.


Critically examining the role of neutrality in upholding unjust systems and
finding ways to support and protect marginalized communities are important,
even crucial conversations our profession must continue to wrestle with.
Those conversations are ongoing, and in very real ways only beginning.
Where the profession will eventually land on this intersection of core
values is perhaps unclear at present. In the meantime, individual library
policy makers will need to think carefully about how their policies can
best support the vulnerable among us while still upholding our
constitutional imperative to support the free expression of ideas.


(Special thanks to OLA’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Task Force for
very helpful input on this Tuesday Topic).


Steve Silver

Intellectual Freedom Committee member




-- 
Steve Silver
SteveSilver673 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20210223/d103fbce/attachment.html>