Response to the Responses to Whiteness as Collections by Karen Toonen

Over the last few days, the post entitled, "Whiteness as Collections" by Sofia Leung an academic librarian with a focus on libraries, social justice and critical race theory and editor at In the Library With the Lead Pipe, has garnered a lot of attention. 

Many are angry at what she had to say and are responding in very rude and racists ways. I however believe that what she wrote was something we all need to hear. Please read the essay for yourself, but her points about our collections being built on "whiteness" and the layers upon layers of problems and issues this creates over time are extremely thought provoking, helpful, and quite honestly, as we are now seeing with the awful and hurtful response, necessary [not to mention overdue]. 

And now, rightfully so, even more people are upset at the responses. Some of those people are reaching out to me because, 1, they know I support an open and honest discourse surround EDI issues [even if those conversations are difficult and controversial] and 2, they know I have a platform, this blog, where they can share their options with the wider world.

One of those people is my ARRT Steering Committee Colleague and dear friend Karen Toonen. Last year, after a similar situation where she was angered by white library ladies getting all up in arms about equity, diversity, and inclusion, she wrote the piece below. But, she wasn't ready to share it with me [and all of you] then. However, she is now. I think her thoughts are important for all of you to read. 

When we talked about her using this piece today she did say, "If I wrote it today, I would include more about "Sell the plot and appeals. Don't focus on the otherness of the characters...." But other than that, she wants the world to know her opinion. And I for one am happy to spread it out into the wider world. Thanks Karen.

Librarians as Limiters, Silencers, and Gatekeepers

by Karen Toonen 

I love books. Ok, let’s be honest, I’m an addict. I need stories. I generally have multiple going at a time and have experienced withdrawal after five minutes with nothing to read. Libraries have always been my book supplier. So, I love libraries.   

But interestingly, I haven’t always loved librarians. To me, librarians were gatekeepers and limiters.  In my introduction to the elementary school library, I was limited to only books from certain shelves.  I panicked. I could only have three a week. And they were boring. And I finished them all on the bus home that day. My mom said not to worry; she’d bring me books from the public library. Since there were no limits on nonfiction, she said, “Ask the librarian to show you where mythology is. Trust me, you’ll like it.” That was my first experience of circumventing library policies to get what I wanted to read. In High School, librarians judged my reading tastes, saying I should “climb the reading ladder” – forgoing speculative fiction for "Great Literature." I gave them distain and rebellion as only a teenager can. Their intentions may have been good, but those librarians were limiting, judging, and gatekeeping. 

But I kept loving libraries and working in them. When I discovered readers advisory, a whole world opened. I could share my love of story AS A JOB! Now, I’m a paid book pusher. (It’s a legal drug!) Eventually, I decided to become a librarian.   

However, I still view librarianship through the lens of a story addict. And I still think too few library workers realize how their assumptions, actions, and inactions are limiting their users. Here’s some examples: 

First, the “we should buy books based on their literary merit, not the gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation of the author” argument.  

Why? And who gets to define literary merit? I read for character and plot. I want books that have closed endings.  However, no library worker would agree with me if I refused to buy Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn on the grounds that it had an ambiguous ending and I don’t want to read ambiguous endings.  If I only buy what I want to read, I am being a censor.  I am limiting their reading options. I’m being the librarian I hated.  

Some people like to see stories that reflect themselves and their lives. This includes their culture, their sexual orientation, and their gender. Therefore, yes, I should consider the gender and ethnicity of the author when buying books for my library. It’s no different than acknowledging how much of my community reads for language or stories full of realistic ambiguity. I need to let my collection reflect what my community wants. Beyond simply reflecting my community, there is the wider world to explore! As reading advocates, library staff preach that reading enhances empathy. But if all the books in our collections have similar points of view, how will readers develop empathy? 

Second, the “But my community doesn’t read ‘diverse books'" argument.  Really?  Do you know, or do you assume that? Did you experiment recently? Did you use something like Baker and Tayler’s Kirkus Collections to find books by authors from different backgrounds who you aren’t buying? Did you use a program like Patron-Driven-Acquisitions to load hundreds of books into your catalog, and then let the community tell you what they want? Did you also go out into your community with a big marketing campaign to say, “We see you. We are changing our collection to include more books you might enjoy. Please give us a second chance.  We want to have the authors and books you crave.”   

The community doesn’t need to understand the logistics of PDA – that you don’t buy books that don’t get holds placed on them. They don’t need to know the logistics of your staff suddenly shifting budget lines when you realize your buying patterns are outdated.  But the library does need to actively try to engage the parts of the community who have already tried to use our collections, found we have nothing they want, and (rightly) given up on using us.  We failed them. Now we need to fix our failure. 

Third, libraries inherently and actively limit our community’s choice of materials.  We have to because of budget. We say selection is not censorship, but how do we wield selection – as a tool or a limit? We shouldn’t spend the money we have based solely on tradition or standard practice. Change happens. Our communities change. Our world changes. We have to change with them or accept that we will make ourselves obsolete. If you make assumptions, then set out to prove your own hypothesis, you actually prove nothing. 

We are complicit in silencing certain voices when we make assumptions about what our community wants or what our community needs. Those members of your community who are non-users, their silence speaks volumes about your relationship with them. If you aren’t clear how silence can speak louder than words, please listen to Sonali Dev’s RWA 2018 Librarians’ Day Keynote Address. 

Fourth, the space argument. “You don’t have space to try experimenting with different authors or voices.” Exactly how many copies of last year’s best sellers do you have on the shelf? Did you do the math?  How many copies of each Patterson, Woods, Steel title or do you need to be sure people can find it on the shelves when they want it? While the library may have needed many copies of a title to meet the initial demand, after a year, that demand has changed. (With a three week check out, for a patron to have a 50% chance of finding a title, you only need two copies if the first has gone out 8 times the last 12 months.) WEED. Also, how many books do you have on your shelves that haven’t gone out in more than two years? You bought them. You personally are connected to them. You love them, so you could never weed them.  However, a public library is not your personal collection.  WEED.  Make space to experiment. 

Fifth, are you (passively or actively) handselling and giving that publicity boost to the books you are saying your community doesn’t read? When you create a display of crime books, of course you grabbed the A-list authors. You probably remembered to add Walter Mosely. What about Kyra Davis, Kellye Garret, Alexia Gordon, Keigo Higashino, Joe Ide, Nic Joseph, Vu Tran, or Sara Waters?  Experience shows front facing and displays move books. Do you give all authors an equal chance?  

When a male fan bemoans being out of Jack Reacher books, do you recommend Zoe Sharp?  Lee Child himself said, “If Jack Reacher were a woman, he’d be Charlie Fox.” What better read-alike cred do you need? Or did YOU assume that a man who loves Lee Child wouldn’t want to read a female writer or a female heroine?  You need to get your personal assumptions out of the way of helping other people – and out of the way of doing your job. 

Finally, it’s not just about which authors, but also which formats.  For example, Kit Rocha print books weren’t circulating at my library.  The same month I was weeding them from print, I received a request to buy an ebook.  An automatic reply would be: “It won’t go out enough times to justify the cost. I have proof. I’m withdrawing that author right now.” But, THINK. Are your print users the same as your ebook users?  My library's aren’t. Kit Rocha eBooks immediately had holds on them.  I bought more, and more holds. Using an eReader affords more privacy – very welcome when reading erotic romance. (Given Rocha has sold over $250,000 in ebook, but less than $10,000 in print, it is obvious what format readers prefer!) Again, check your assumptions. Take chances. Maybe it’s not the author or the book, but the format. 

You want to serve your community better, then see your community. Actually see them. Ask them what they want, don’t tell them what they need. Don’t limit their options. Be your community’s advocate. Admitting we have areas for improvement is the first step. However, taking action is the more important step.  In the words of Suleikha Snyder, “Learn. Care. Do better. It’s all we can do.”  

For a library dedicated to serving its community, it’s actually the least we can do.