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

[Marilyn Kearney]

Mark,

Thank you very much for your input on this. As a new librarian, both in my career and in Oregon, I’m still trying to find my feet in terms of how to broach subjects like this with my admin and coworkers. It is intensely frustrating to run into the wall of “neutrality,” especially when it’s brought up in the context of books like “Irreversible Damage.”

I feel that in our efforts to remain neutral we’ve lost sight of what that means, or else it’s become skewed, especially in recent years. The fact is that for many things, there aren’t two sides—at least not two sides of equal merit. See also the recent controversies over Andy Ngo’s book, Unmasked, which has been proven to be full of false information. To stock this book would be irresponsible not only because of it being inaccurate, but because it gives the illusion that Ngo’s misinformation is as legitimate as fact. To be neutral doesn’t mean treating all information as equal, but rather it means evaluating it critically and without bias. Ngo isn’t presenting a different perspective on a single issue; he’s pushing misinformation, which has very real world consequences, and should not stand up to the critical eye of a collection development librarian.

Both Ngo and Shrier’s work are similarly dangerous in that way.

From: Libs-Or <libs-or-bounces at omls.oregon.gov> On Behalf Of Mark Kille via Libs-Or
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 10:37 AM
To: Steve Silver <stevesilver673 at gmail.com>
Cc: Libs-OR <libs-or at omls.oregon.gov>
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Libs-Or] February 2021 Tuesday Topic: Collection Development and harmful literature


[NOTICE:  This message originated outside of Tillamook County -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
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<mailto: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<mailto:libs-or at omls.oregon.gov>> wrote:
External -
[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.



[https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/1Ff-UL3kMy0fu75UEsF8NhNhmmdCZdg_j6TV-hx8j_ZJRLQpAOXyYxxcmvpWFSBUhmBbqi0e8y4dRfGSebH5PilbaOC_3RW-O61nJQNLQhHNOZ04Sr3ui-hjYZWMic-lfIKMzRnt]



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<mailto:SteveSilver673 at gmail.com>
[https://multco.us/sites/all/themes/multco/logo.png]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/20210223/18812f31/attachment.html>