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

[Mark Kille]

Hi all,

One aspect of this recurring conversation that I find intensely frustrating
is that it sidesteps the even more basic criteria of *accuracy*.

To a certain extent, this is a question of *classification* as much as
*selection*. No responsible librarian would purchase a book on creationism
and shelve it in the evolutionary biology or geology sections. It would go
in theology, where it is appropriate within the conventions of that
discipline.

This conversation also sidesteps the basic criteria of *authority*. No
responsible librarian would use their limited evolutionary biology or
geology budgets to purchase a book on those subjects by *me*, a person who
has no scholarly expertise in this area, unless maybe I did a really good
job of packaging authoritative sources in an accessible way.

From the reviews of *Irreversible Damage* that I have read, it is neither
accurate nor authoritative. It is, instead, speculative and irresponsible
in its methodology, *regardless of whether one is sympathetic to its basic
argument or not*. (Which, to be 100% clear, I am not.)

On "social issues" or "political questions" that impact marginalized
communities, mainstream society still accepts that individuals with
dominant identities have *right* or even an *obligation* to be equal
participants in the conversation, no matter what their actual training or
expertise is. *This is ridiculous and antithetical to core values of
librarianship.*

I've been out of cataloging for many years, so I am not sure where
*Irreversible
Damage* belongs on the shelf, exactly. But it doesn't belong anywhere near
where people are going for good-faith information on the science or life
experiences of transgender folks. For me, though, I wouldn't bother
purchasing it at all, unless receiving direct patron purchase suggestions
or large numbers of interlibrary loan requests.

The same goes for other works that that harm any marginalized community by
being inaccurate and/or poorly informed. They are low-value resources, even
if there weren't the negative impact. *Which there undeniably is.* Any
librarian who selects them anyway should have a very persuasive and
specific rationale for how each one serves the mission of their collection,
beyond "Some people will find it gratifying to read it" or "But what
about...?"

Regards,
Mark

*Mark Kille*
*Department of County Human Services - Human Resources*
503-988-7527
mark.kille at multco.us

Gender-Inclusive Workplace: My pronouns are
<https://multco.us/assertive-engagement/lgbtq-justice-further-learning-resources>
he/him/his.

Leading with Race
<https://multco.us/safety-trust-and-belonging-workforce-equity-initiative/why-we-lead-race>
: I am white and Southern.

Accessibility Statement: I use a large sans-serif font
<http://createsend.com/t/d-ABFFF5F25EC93A19> in my emails to improve
accessibility. Please let me know if phone, video, specific file format, or
any other medium would be better for communicating with you. You do not
need to disclose any disability you may have.


Land and Governance Acknowledgment
<https://edmethods.com/student-posts/whose-lands-are-we-on-recognizing-original-peoples-lands-and-history/>:
Multnomah County sets policy, enforces laws, and provides services on the
land of traditional village sites of many Indigenous peoples
<https://native-land.ca/>. White settlers took this land with government
support through coercion
<https://ctgr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=2ba01436bde9445786f0c2a0a669f82d>
and outright theft
<https://www.opb.org/article/2020/09/27/the-us-government-took-the-land-of-oregons-native-people-170-years-ago-this-week/>,
built cities and towns with wealth derived from centuries of forced labor
<https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/16/20806069/slavery-economy-capitalism-violence-cotton-edward-baptist>
by enslaved Africans and their descendants, and protected white dominance
through exclusionary laws and policies
<https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/blacks_in_oregon/>. Engaging
with the Land Back <https://landback.org/manifesto/> conversation and taking
action on reparations
<https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/01/portland-to-lobby-feds-on-reparations-for-black-indigenous-communities.html>
are urgent and necessary, as are stronger institutional relationships with
the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde <https://www.grandronde.org/>,
the Confederated
Tribes of Siletz Indians <http://www.ctsi.nsn.us/>, the Clatsop-Nehalem
Confederated Tribes <http://clatsop-nehalem.com/>, and the Chinook Nation
<https://www.chinooknation.org/>.


On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:21 AM Steve Silver via Libs-Or <
libs-or at omls.oregon.gov> wrote:

> External -
> [image: External Sender]
>
> 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
>
[This email was encrypted for your privacy and security]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20210223/0e01e652/attachment.html>