Neutrality: Past and Present

In recent years, the issue of library neutrality has risen to the top of a toxic discourse about the role of libraries in society.  Each day seems to bring new stories of how librarians have been vilified for basic aspects of their jobs, such as hosting events or choosing books to be included in their collections.

As scrutiny of the role of the library in society has increased, critics of how libraries operate have begun asserting that many issues related to libraries stem from their failure to uphold a foundational idea in librarianship called neutrality.

Neutrality, it is said, is a fundamental component of librarianship because it derives from the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights (Dudley & Wright, 2023).  By making certain choices in what materials libraries collect and what programs are offered, and by questioning this idea of neutrality and its influence on the profession, librarians are supposedly harming their local communities and perhaps society as a whole.

One notable example of this rhetoric was published in a New York Times opinion piece by Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the conservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center.  Kurtz’s piece, The Battle for the Soul of the Library, asserted that “woke” librarians are allowing their “personal politics” to violate the supposedly core library value of neutrality and thus “betray the public trust.” (Kurtz, 2022)

Kurtz is not employed in a library, nor has he published much on libraries, their history, and their philosophies, so I’m not surprised he misreads this issue.  Yes, Kurtz is correct that the Library Bill of Rights includes the phrase, “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues,” followed by, “Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”  However, this language exists to address concepts of censorship from outside organizations or actions of politicians seeking to tell the library what to do (much as Kurtz and other critics are doing now).

Kurtz also asserts a position that what he terms as “progressive” librarians are omnipresent in the field and are challenging the library as a “sacred ground – a neutral sphere above the fray.”  This trend, he asserts, began in the 1960s-70s due to the Vietnam War, and has continued to the present day as seen by how librarians “adopt the role of political actors” in resolutions presented at American Library Association’s annual conference.  Leaving aside the fact that many professional organizations create statements about issues like wars or pass resolutions condemning them (Journal, n.d.; NAM News Room, 2023; Skelly, 2023), this comprehension of ALA meetings misses many important factors.

Library literature scarcely mentioned the word neutrality until the 1950s, when libraries were unjustly targeted in the Red Scare (Francoeur, 2006; Gluck, 2018).

Of course, pursuit of a totally “neutral collection” – if such a thing can even be defined – is never possible.  A truly objective collection, developed without personal and economic biases introduced by selection, would require purchasing every book (or CD, DVD, etc.) ever produced.  All libraries are constrained by acquisition budgets, space, and staff time.

Kurtz further mentions the need to purchase books from a wide variety of perspectives to “balance” existing ones, especially since schools provide curriculum from a textbook which may espouse a certain point of view.  I would argue that libraries in fact already do this.  While the so-called “leftist” books Kurtz notes are indeed widely collected, the conservative ones he mentions are quite common – each found in hundreds of libraries across the United States (WorldCat.Org, 2024).  While it’s true they are found in fewer libraries than works they respond to, this is likely due to the fact that many are written as responses to popular books, or present a scholarly take, as opposed to being original works intended for a popular audience, some of which (like Zinn) have been reprinted for generations and have become classics in their genre.

Looking beyond Kurtz’s suggestions to the Conservative Book Club’s Conservative bestseller list, I can see examples of books like Killing the SS, Ship of Fools, 12 Rules for Life, and Trump’s America found in more than 1,000 libraries across the country.  Reviewing the list overall, many of these works are just as or even more widely held than the “leftist” sources Kurtz cites, contradicting his claims of woke librarians censoring purchases of conservative materials.

Librarians have long recognized issues of trying to develop a robust collection within the realities of budgets and serving the community.  Library pioneer Melvil Dewey championed a value phrase that became the American Library Association’s motto: “The best reading, for the largest number, at the least cost,” which was intended to maximize availability of library materials to as many community members possible (Gerhardt, 1988).  Development of this motto helps illustrate how library collection development has actually long had a prescriptive bent.

Libraries grew out of the progressive era, where they were intended as tools of social improvement.  What this often meant in practice was purchasing “educational” materials designed to inculcate people, especially impoverished immigrants, into an American society that was socially dominated by an “Anglo-Saxon” protestant elite (Garrison, 2003).

Libraries have always worked to choose materials they believe will provide the most benefit for their communities – a far longer record than their history of trying to provide whatever neutrality means.  So, recent discussions in libraries about neutrality and selection of materials do matter.  What materials we collect can make a difference for our readers by providing perspectives they may not see, as well as safe access to the same.

We might make mistakes in collection development.  I’ve personally regretted book purchases when I’ve had to choose within options within available budgets, when an item I chose quickly became outdated, and the option not taken became a classic.  But that’s okay.  Trying to be neutral has not helped libraries.  After all, there were a record number of book bans in 2023 which sought to remove or restrict access to materials carefully selected by librarians (“Banned in the USA,” 2024).

Critics who hark back to libraries as ostensibly neutral institutions seek to wield this imagined ideal as a cudgel intended to beat down and slander librarians who buy materials or host programs that anti-library people don’t like and don’t want to be available.  Their purported neutrality is an imagined ideal intended to structure power to support some individuals and institutions, while serving as a step in a process that tries to dismantle library and other governmental infrastructure as much as possible (EveryLibrary Institute, 2024).  Libraries are important public institutions that provide sources of knowledge and places of tolerance that unfortunately many people oppose and want to destroy.  Fighting to achieve a concept of neutrality is a distraction from this.

John DeLooper

References

Banned in the USA: Beyond the Shelves. (2024, November 1). PEN America. https://pen.org/report/beyond-the-shelves/

Books published per country per year. (2024). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Books_published_per_country_per_year&oldid=1251176009

Dudley, M. Q., & Wright, J. (2023). The Role of Multidimensional Library Neutrality in Advancing Social Justice: Adapting Theoretical Foundations from Political Science and Urban Planning. Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy, 7(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.5860/jifp.v7i3.7840

EveryLibrary Institute. (2024, July). Project 2025 and Its Consequences for Libraries. https://www.milibraries.org/assets/docs/Project_2025_Consequences_for_Libraries_-_July_2024.pdf

Francoeur, S. (2006). McCarthyism and Libraries: Intellectual Freedom Under Fire, 1947-1954.

Garrison, D. (2003). Apostles of Culture: The Public Librarian and American Society, 1876-1920. Univ. of Wisconsin Press.

Gerhardt, L. N. (1988). That Motto of ALA. School Library Journal, 34(8), 4.

Gluck, L. (2018, May 3). Intellectual Freedom, Racial Subjugation, and Class Suppression: A Brief History of Library Neutrality. DERAIL Forum 2018, Boston, MA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hTMXOXwIE

Journal, A. B. A. (n.d.). ABA condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and urges UN to investigate war crimes. ABA Journal. Retrieved November 25, 2024, from https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/resolution-405-aba-condemns-russias-invasion-of-ukraine

Kurtz, S. (2022, February 24). Opinion | The Battle for the Soul of the Library. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/opinion/battle-library-neutrality.html

NAM News Room. (2023, January 25). Manufacturers in the U.S. Stand with Ukraine. NAM. https://nam.org/manufacturers-in-the-u-s-stand-with-ukraine-20419/

Skelly, C. (2023, December 1). UAW Statement on Israel and Palestine. UAW | United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. https://uaw.org/uaw-statement-israel-palestine/

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2020). The Global Publishing Industry in 2018. World Intellectual Property Organization.

WorldCat.org. (2024). https://search.worldcat.org