10A: Neutral Libraries in the Age of Polemics

First off, before I even start writing about my reflections on last class, I want to express my utmost gratitude for having a space to engage with my peers about our thoughts concerning the aftermath of what was a hellish presidential election season. It made me feel validated enough to speak my truth and engage in active listening with my classmates. Thank you to everyone in this class for your willingness and generosity.

Now, a lot of topics were discussed in our broad ranging conversation of how the profession can act now that Donald Trump is president-elect. One topic or theme that I specifically want to hone in on is the concept that libraries must be kept as a neutral space so that all patrons can feel comfortable using it, no matter their political affiliation. This line of thinking also applies to making collection development decisions as well, depending on the politics of the area in which the library is located. These choices that we make in order to satisfy users need to be examined critically, as these choices impact how we welcome and retain our patrons. For blog writers like Jenica Rogers, the choice could not be more clear:

“I have an obligation, as a professional and as a representative of the State, to distinguish between my personal convictions and my professional duties. I must not advance my private interests at the expense of the comfort and safety of my library users. I must not alienate my community — regardless of which 50% of the electorate best represented their views this political season.” [1] 

The fear of alienating the communities we serve, a fear shared by many in our past class, has merit and rightly rejects the premise that libraries should be polemical spaces. Yet, in an age of polemics, how do we ensure that these spaces of neutrality we create are truly safe for all our patrons? How can we remain nonpartisan when confronted with the politics of bigotry that will surely alienate some (but not all) members of our community?

I feel that there needs to be lines that we have to draw when developing our conceptions of the neutral library. Hate speech against marginalized members of our society should be included in this boundary, an argument I made about the Breitbart example raised by Kristin, which I framed around my imagined notion of “decency.” While iterative arguments about where to draw the line can be useful, at some point, library professionals need to make a concrete policy decision on how to handle the exchange of ideas that are openly harmful. What we define as neutrality does not need to be unconditional, nor should it be, as we should not neglect the needs of vulnerable patrons to assuage the greater majority. At the same time, we need to be open-minded about the effect such policies would have on the patron that is researching, and not advocating harm. This might mean making a distinction with collecting policies and patron behavior policies, willing to be flexible in some instances and not others. For example, removing a patron that is shouting racial slurs and banning a book that contains racial slurs are two different situations. They are comprised of contexts that need to be critically considered, not lumped up into a passive notion of neutrality.

While developing my thoughts about my argument on the neutrality of libraries, I thought it was useful to incorporate what Brian brought up the example of whether or not to include books that deny climate change. He stated that an argument can be made that a potential resource has no empirical standing, and therefore could be rejected based on the lack of objective facts present in its contents. I find this useful because it upkeeps the professional appearance of the librarian, who as an individual has biases, but as a staff member must abide to impartiality. The objective nature of empirical evidence gives standing for when librarians must answer to why they include books that acknowledge the Holocaust and not books that deny the Holocaust. All of this also goes back to our earlier discussions of the librarian persona, which maintains a professional face even when confronted with something that is personally challenging. How we deploy that persona when conceiving the boundaries of neutrality should be up for discussion. Ultimately, the distinction between “personal conviction” and “professional duties,” as Rogers names them, is more blurred than we realize as the polemic nature of our current political situation seeps into the neutral bubble we as librarians struggle to maintain.

--

[1] Rogers, Jenica. "An Open Letter to My Community." Attempting Elegance. Blog. Published November 11, 2016.