Books Are NOT Diverse, They Don't Have an Identity

I am making updates to the slide deck I use as part of the Anti-Racist training Robin and I do for library workers engaged in collection development and readers' advisory. Robin and I are always gathering the most common questions both to answer in person and to update our presentations. And, often, I write posts here on the blog so that we have a place to send people to for answers.

We also regularly share a lot of the racist BS we see in library spaces to file away and refer to later as well. 

One common question we get is how do we handle questions like these:

From a library who received the following patron comment through official channels: How do I eliminate options for LGBTQ titles when I am browsing your lists and e-books?

From #AskALibrarian on Twitter but deleted after she was called out: "Looking for novels about college students with light Romance, not diverse, not lgbtqia. For a college age patron."

I have included the screen shot for proof

From a big 5 publisher's library marketing email asking library workers to tell them more about what types of books they are looking for [Alt text added]:

While each of these questions is slightly different, they all hit on the same theme, and it is a question we have gotten over and over and over again-- how do we help readers who request that you only give them straight, white books.

The answer is the crux of our entire training. Being actively anti-racist requires no extra work. You just use basic RA skills to answer questions and add an anti-racist lens on top. Start with what you already do, but also don't ignore your mandate (from ALA itself) to combat racism and social injustice.

First and foremost, remind people, as the title of this post says, "Books Are NOT Diverse, They Don't Have an Identity." We need to remind staff and patrons of this when they make these comments. The books themselves are objects. They have no agenda or identity, or diversity. In fact, they are all made of the same materials, meaning the books themselves have little to no diversity.

This is important to point out to people to de-escalate the situation and remind them that the only agenda happening at the library is to put the best possible book for them, into their hands. We need to be direct, address microagressions immediately, and show our patrons that we center inclusion and belonging in the library above all else. That statement about the books themselves is key to making your feelings about their request clear without being disrespectful. 

Side note: our experience shows us that most of those who request books as in the first two examples, are not as racist as the comment seems. In fact, some have been brain washed into thinking that the library only has gay or Black or whatever books. In reality the vast majority of our collections and the most often checked out items are overwhelming white and cis and hetero. Being direct without emotion and without allowing them to be hateful in your building, demonstrates your commitment to belonging. 

But even if they are racist, the answer to this question is at the heart of EVERYTHING we do at the library to match books with readers. So I will begin with the general answer that works for all of these types of requests and then move on to breaking down these 3 specific examples because they are slightly different.  

In general the answer to all of these requests to eliminate books which highlight marginalized voices is to tell people the truth-- "We do not match books based on the character's identities, but rather, on the appeal factors, or how the books is written. For example, the pacing, the characterization, the narrative choices, the language, the themes, etc...."

We always need to remind our patrons that our only agenda is matching them with books from our collection that they would never find without our help (because we have so many) and that our suggestions are based around what they have liked in the past. We are there to make those connections using our professional skills and resources.

That being said, if you are doing the work that the ALA Code of Ethics requires of you-- to combat systemic racism and social injustice-- you still cannot only give them white, cis books. In fact, I state this in every training I do and I have done it multiple times myself, when faced with a question like the Twitter screen shot above-- I give them 3 suggestions (as I do for every interaction) and make sure one is perfect in every way based on appeal but also has exactly what they said they don't want. In the case of  "Looking for novels about college students with light Romance, not diverse, not lgbtqia. For a college age patron," this was easy because one of the best suggestions for this reader is Red, White, and Royal Blue by Casey McQuiston.

I have been doing this and telling others to do so-- giving 1 of 3 books that is a perfect match appeal wise, but also has the thing they don't want--for 2 years now and the anecdotal success rate is about 40% for that title. But here is the thing, even if they didn't love the book, we have found that rarely, if ever, does someone come back angry.  Why? Because the book is usually perfect in every other way. They read it and didn't mind it all that much. They may not seek out a"gay" book again, but they definitely stop asking to exclude them, especially when what they had was such a great read.

Need more proof. Okay. This has happened more times than I can count. A patron comes up and wants to make sure they don't get a book with any "trans" characters because they don't want to read about that. After talking to them, I find they like bestselling, book discussion type books. So I suggest one of the biggest books of the last few years to them-- The Vanishing Half by Brit Bennett. More often than not, they have read it and loved it (and if not, they know about it and want to read it). I remind those how loved it that the book has a HUGE plot line about a woman and her trans boyfriend, a plot line that is key to the entire book. 

Insert awkward silence. They cannot argue this one. They loved the book and it had exactly what they said they did not want.

Okay, that deals with the specific answer to the second example from above. Let's get back to the first. The first puzzled the library who received the comment. Reminder it was: "How do I eliminate options for LGBTQ titles when I am browsing your e-books?" The problem in the library's eyes-- how can we answer this without seeming like we are condoning their homophobia. Also, they were worried about offending the person, even though they are offensive themself.

However, once again the answer is easy and based on your basic RA principles. Remember, when we use less inflammatory examples, it all seems easier.

The answer is simple-- you cannot filter that out, but just like with books on the shelf, don't read the titles you don't want to. There are tons of books available in print and electronic collections that aren't right for you. Treat the question as if the person said, I don't want books with dogs in them. That is an impossible request. You cannot filter that out. Same here. Make that distinction clear. Be direct but clear. It is NOT a "diversity" agenda, it is basic RA Service. 

The last one, the publisher email survey is actually the most upsetting. Why because it is so wrong on so many levels. Asking people if they are interested in books by underrepresented voices itself isn't too bad. Are they looking to see if they should publish more? Maybe. But they could also be trying to justify publishing fewer. I don't think the question needed to be there at all because the assumption should be that all library workers need to know about titles from across as many perspectives as possible because they are serving global citizens. Our collections need to represent the global society we live in. Oh, and don't believe me that we live in a global society, well you just experienced a global pandemic, so you're wrong there.

So already, a little uneasy here. But then, that final box to tick off-- "No, I am not interested." This was my WTF moment. I stopped the survey, took a screen shot, and texted it to Robin immediately. This emailed survey was about how they were going to tailor their newsletter to you specifically. This means that they are going to use the "No"  answer to this question as a justification to only give you white suggestions. Ummm, yeah, not okay. Also as Robin pointed out, "Where is the option to ONLY give you underrepresented voice?" There is nothing here about matching books based on their appeal either. 

Or as Robin summed it up when I said they should be matching based on appeal and only appeal, "That isn't even presented. We're going to force books by straight white people on you whether you want them or not. But when it comes to others, we understand if you want to opt out. And it it's definitely not taking into account that the underrepresented voice could be writing exactly what you want based on appeal. You're giving folks the chance to not even SEE it based on the author and not the actual book."

And that is the crux of the harm in all of these questions, and why I am writing this posts. Sometimes I give this talk without Robin. Sometimes, people only see our slides and they don't hear us talk about these difficult topics. And sometimes, I think those of you who follow my blog and our Anti-Racist work too often think others, bad actors outside of our library ranks, are the problem. But no, it is everyone. 

But, if all of us were direct and did not engage in inflammatory language and simply stood on our strong RA foundations we'd all be doing a lot better. Remember these three things to guide you:

1. Books Are NOT Diverse, They Don't Have an Identity
2. The ALA Code of Ethics demands that we fight against systemic racism and for social justice
3. We match books based on appeal, not the author's identity.

I will be posting the new slides soon.