As part of the updates I am making to the Anti-Racist programs that Robin and I offer [See also this post last from week], I am going a bit off the traditional service to readers focus, but not that far off because it involves a question we get all of the time. Here is a version of said question:
You have great advice on how to deal with problematic titles and disinformation in the library, but we also need help with hate groups trying to use our meeting rooms? How can we firm up our programming policies without violating Freedom of Speech.
I will get to the easy policy fix in a moment, but first, the same advice we give for books works for these program situations. As I like to say, all opinions can be shared at the library but not all deserve self space.
Going back to last week's post, let's begin with a less inflammatory example. A library is supposed to hold authoritative material. When Pluto was deemed, "not a planet," we all rushed to delete every book that listed Pluto as a planet from our collections. It was not a fact anymore. No one fought us on this. It was expected.
The same procedure should hold true for a more inflammatory example, Holocaust deniers. We should not have books on the shelf that say the Holocaust did not happen because it did. This opinion incorrect factually. Their claims that you should have their books because they have a right to free speech are not valid because it is irresponsible for us to shelve books that are not factual.
[For reference, the entire Country of Austria passed a law to provide Holocaust Refugee Reparations Citizenship and I now hold both citizenship and an EU Passport as proof that it did happen and they are formally apologizing for it. Entire countries don't do this unless the thing they are apologizing for actually happened.]
Back to our collections. Our shelf space is limited and we cannot and should not fill it with books that are completely false when we don't even have room for all of the accurate books we would want to include.
It is important to not that using the words "false" or "misinformation" could be inflammatory, so we need alternatives. I tackled this very question with the Strategic Planning Committee at my library this past Winter. I wanted us to be STRONG against misinformation in our Mission Statement-- not just our collection policy-- and I challenged us to find a word to denote that but was less inflammatory and would not be twisted to be used by bad actors. Because if we call something someone disagrees with "misinformation," they could say we were discriminating against them and their views.
I give the team full credit on this one. We worked hard to get this right and I am proud of our use of "meaningful" in our Mission Statement:
We strive to enrich our community by inspiring connections, providing access to meaningful resources, and encouraging curiosity in an inclusive and welcoming atmosphere.
People expect us to have meaningful resources. So you don't need that Holocaust denying book anywhere in your library because it is not meaningful.
Which leads to the next point that people bring up to argue with my previous point-- but Becky libraries need to be "neutral." It is part of our ethics.
First of all, if we were neutral, we would buy every single book that is every published and never make a choice as to what to add(and we would never weed). Obviously we do not do this. Every single item that is added to our collections is a choice, made by someone trained to craft a library collection, but it is a choice. We use a variety of metrics and a collection development policy to guide those choices but because it involves choice and policy, it can never be neutral.
Libraries are not and never have been neutral. We are not political. Neutrality is and never has been the goal. Contrary to popular belief, the ALA has never used the term "neutral." (For more on this from the ALA committee tasked with addressing this misconceptions, click here.)
However, one can see where the waters were murky and that place is with the ALA Code of Ethics. Principles 1-8 hug that neutrality line a little too close for comfort. In 2021 the ALA Council recognized this and took a stand by adding a 9th Principle, stating:
We affirm the inherent dignity and rights of every person. We work to recognize and dismantle systemic and individual biases; to confront inequity and oppression; to enhance diversity and inclusion; and to advance racial and social justice in our libraries, communities, profession, and associations through awareness, advocacy, education, collaboration, services, and allocation of resources and spaces.
This 9th Principle clears up the misunderstandings of the first 8 and lands on the side of action, telling libraries that they must act again systemic oppression.
Some library workers try to argue with me that they ignore the 9th principle because it "contradicts" the first 8, but to them I say that that perceived contradiction is the entire point. This amendment is the final statement and if your library follows the ALA Code of Ethics, which every library I have seen does by referring to I tin this policy manual, you now are required to fight oppression.
I have very little patience for our library colleagues who hide behind the language of neutrality because it is WRONG, it is also lazy, but fundamentally and most importantly it is incorrect. If you or your bosses are one of those people who lean on this language, I want you to really read this post. Sit with it and think about why you are incorrect. And if you still disagree with me, contact me, goodness knows you wouldn't even be close to the first person to object to me saying "Libraries are not neutral." I have had people reach out to chastise me for this belief, I have had them refuse to sign a contract to work with me because they must sign off on my EDI Mission Statement which proclaims this, and I have had people write those who have hired me angry letters.
Complain all you want but you are wrong and hurting our profession. The sooner you sit back and come to terms with your misguided views and do the work to move on, the better it will be for all of us.
But Becky I thought you were going to talk about program room policies? Yes, I am getting there by way of grounding us in our core policies and principles as they relate to materials. Again as that 9th Principle of he ALA Code of ethics states (emphasis mine):
We affirm the inherent dignity and rights of every person. We work to recognize and dismantle systemic and individual biases; to confront inequity and oppression; to enhance diversity and inclusion; and to advance racial and social justice in our libraries, communities, profession, and associations through awareness, advocacy, education, collaboration, services, and allocation of resources and spaces.
Everything I have written up to this point is building the case for what I am going to write next...
...We are obligated to say no to groups who would like to use our spaces if their mission is to be racist or homophobic. That 9th Principle includes our allocation of spaces, in other words, our programming space.
It is in black and white in the ALA Code of Ethics. Something every single library makes mention of in their policies of following. NOT standing up against hate groups is going against the 9th Principle which requires that you recognize AND dismantle systemic oppression. So, allowing Nazis into your spaces, for example, goes against the ALA Code of Ethics because by allowing them in you are supporting hate.
A more nuanced issue is the current, organized effort to spread hate by Kirk Cameron and his Brave Books publishing company. Click here for details if you are unfamiliar with the issue before proceeding.
In both issues people say (to me and others), but Becky our Program Room Policy requires that we not judge a group who requests space. Or we have a statement that says the fact that we are hosting program does not mean we are approving of the organization hosting said program. And, the laziest of the arguments, we have to be neutral and or allow every request regardless of our personal opinions.
STOP. Last one first. Just like with books, we do not have to allow every request, Nothing in our rules or laws says as much. Now we cannot refuse people based on our personal opinions, this is true. However, if we are using the ALA Code of Ethics, which again, every library I have seen makes mention of following it in their general policies, our professional opinion would be to disallow groups that do not allow us to support that 9th Principle.
This 9th Principle argument is a professional one. It is a policy reason to say no to any group that goes against our requirement "to recognize and dismantle systemic and individual biases; to confront inequity and oppression; to enhance diversity and inclusion..."
It is your library administration's job to apply their written policy in their action, so this should be plenty for any library to refuse Nazis or Brave Books or Antti-Trans groups; however, I suggest you also include an out clause as well, and I will use my library as the example.
We state that we follow the ALA Code of Ethics in our policies and made sure to vote to uphold these ethics since the inclusion of the 9th Principle in a public meeting. We also have a very clear statement in our Programs policy. You can read the entire thing here but here is the key statement for our purposes:
Staff welcomes program suggestions and proposals, yet retains the right to determine which programs and events are scheduled.
In other words, the staff have an out clause. They can say no to whatever they want for whatever reason they want. Now, any person requesting programming space has a right to appeal if denied, but if your library is following the ALA Code of Ethics, you have that as your professional argument for denying them (if you can't find another one). Of course they can always go to your Board but that is another situation. [As a Board member myself, I can assist you there but this is a post for library workers, not Board members].
But adding this out clause is important because it mimics our collection policies (see it alcoves back to the beginning). We cannot add every book. We make professional decisions based on policy, and yet, we sill sometimes just don't add something because we just don' think it fits our collections. It is our professional opinion in the end that makes the final call. It is our job to make these decisions. Well, the same holds true for our programming spaces. We have policies that say how we decide, but ultimately, we are the experts. We have the final say. End of discussion.
And before you come after me, as others have, that this is not legal. It 100% absolutely is legal. The above policy has been vetted by an attorney. The argument I am making to disallow certain groups is backed by the ALA Code of Ethics. Hiding behind neutrality and simply saying yes to a hate group because it is easier or because you don't want to be in the news... all of that is lazy.
I am writing this detailed post today because I have be contacted by multiple library workers, from places big and small, and I have shared this advice privately so they can fight within their own organizations to make change. But, I know others need something they can point people to. I have worked to make sure my library has strong policies and language so that I can lead by example.
If you need me to talk to your administration, first send them this post. Then email me or have them email me. I will speak to anyone about this topic for free.
I appreciate your attention today as I went a little off topic. I will add this post, and last week's post referred to at the start of this post to my ActivelyAnti-Racist Service to Leisure Readers page for easy recall. Back to lighter fare tomorrow.
