Green Shoots and Civic Dialogue: In Search of a New Library Telos
Craig Gibson/HxLibraries Co-Moderator
This article is the first in a series of three on searching for a new library telos. This first one is on partnerships with civic dialogue initiatives; the second on open science and open scholarship; and the third on an open inquiry approach to information literacy.
“Above all, remember that by far the greatest engine of social justice, human rights, and equality has been the advancement of knowledge, and the rolling back of ignorance, by a community of truth-seekers empowered to follow evidence wherever it leads.”*
--Jonathan Rauch
A specter is haunting libraries: a specter of a stultified monoculture and a loss of historical purpose in the culture wars.
The ecosystem of sense-making institutions within which libraries now find themselves offers almost daily examples of conflict, mutually unintelligible viewpoints from different political groups, social media firestorms, disagreements about facts and which media organizations, thought leaders, or “influencers” to trust, or distrust. The ecosystem is unstable, shifting, and full of hermetically sealed echo chambers and tribal loyalties within them. Polls show the decline in trust toward journalists, universities, government, cultural organizations, and scientists and scientific institutions, and the truth-seeking missions that have traditionally driven them (1).
In the academy, the challenges in maintaining the traditional truth-seeking mission have mounted over time. One of the internal forces is the influence of various Critical Theories in scholarship and teaching that frame all conflict and inequalities in society through the lens of power and privilege, and the promotion of a particular kind of social justice activism based on group identity, and the use of language-policing to inculcate conformity to a new creed of identity essentialism. (2). Helen Pluckrose describes a particular applied Critical Theory, Critical Social Justice, as the underpinning for the current version of social justice activism growing in influence in the academy, and that affects the core liberal tenets of truth-seeking and tolerance for differences in perspective. Along with this loss of viewpoint diversity, the primary external forces acting on the academy are shifting demographics (declining enrollments), and market forces that drive demand for certain categories of specialization and skill in academic majors. These two forces—of growing internal intolerance for intellectual pluralism, combined with the market valorization of certain occupations and professions--creates a paradoxical climate of risk-aversion and self-censorship. This censoriousness results in declining rigor in open inquiry and scholarship in institutions whose core historic purpose depends on diversity of thought, vibrant dissent, and open debate and disagreement.
The traditional truth-seeking mission of the academy is its telos, its core purpose that animates it and that provides the norms for moving toward approximations of truth through systems of verification, sound research methodologies, peer review (even with its pitfalls), and ongoing debates and discussions among scholars. One especially important perspective of the academy’s telos is that of Jonathan Haidt, who argues that truth-seeking must supersede all other purposes, including social justice imperatives, and that higher education institutions must ultimately choose one core purpose over another since there can only be one overarching purpose (3). Truth-seeking as the core purpose depends crucially on intellectual pluralism, and flourishing of diverse perspectives and energetic debate. If other imperatives such the current (critical) version of social justice take hold, the very real hazard is that the truth-seeking mission will become compromised, and conformity and lessening of debate and dissent will result.
Specific Impacts on Libraries
The expanding monoculture that incentivizes self-censorship and shutting down of open inquiry reveals itself in specific events, policies, behaviors, and interactions of libraries of all types with their publics, the publishing system, and with each other. The monoculture forms its own ecosystem of censorship, based on opposition to free expression, and a surging identity politics. Just a few examples include:
In school libraries, the well-publicized and fraught book bans--though context-dependent and not always well-reported on by the press, with tensions between parental rights groups versus large national organizations opposed to censorship and book bans in almost all circumstances (4)
In public libraries, policies used to justify not renting rooms to certain groups and speakers (5)
In academic libraries and public libraries, the promotion of certain authors and speakers on issues of identity issues and social justice over those with differing perspectives, and the refusal to stock books or platform those with “offending” views and arguments. (6)
With some publishers, the use of “sensitivity readers” to change the language (and meaning) within well-known authors’ works (7)
With some publishers, new guidelines for authors affecting decisions about submitted articles where potential future “harms” can be caused by research findings to some populations (8)
With some publishers, new requirements in some journals for “positionality statements” tied to identity and life experience, and a timidity in the face of blowback from activist academics, such that articles are increasingly being withdrawn for “review” or “correction.” (9)
With some publishers, new expectations for authors, reviewers, and editors to report individual identity/demographic characteristics to advance DEI goals (10)
In professional associations, the promotion of one perspective for social justice (tied to identity essentialism, the Critical Social Justice perspective) without acknowledging other perspectives that are more encompassing of intellectual pluralism or viewpoint diversity (11)
This growing climate of censoriousness, identitarianism, and conformity creates a monoculture where, because of professional and social pressures, questions cannot be asked, dissent is not permitted or is penalized, and inquiry shrinks into safe and predictable zones of comfortable stultification. In such a climate, how can libraries maintain their historic role of both collecting and preserving the scholarly record as a foundation for open inquiry to advance knowledge within the communities they serve?
An Inflection Point
In this time, with fewer institutions trusted by the general public, increasing trust must become a priority for all libraries. They must find their way through cultural battle zones, the ideological conflicts, and the din that assails them as they attempt to preserve their mission and keep the public trust, for the common good. I write here of one specific sphere of influence where academic libraries (which I know best) can gain trust in order to advance that mission, and perhaps create a more engaged future for themselves as trusted organizations. These are the new initiatives focused on civic dialogue and citizenship.
The spark for these projects arises from a welter of reasons frequently discussed in the press, in public forums, in organizations such as the Heterodox Academy, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), and the Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA). Political polarization (and especially asymmetric polarization with growing dislike of outgroups) plays an especially toxic role in creating a challenging climate for open discussion and debate (12). Separate media silos amplify such differences. Well-documented reports of cancellations, disinvitations of speakers on campus, punishments or sanctions of faculty with views that deviate from currently promoted orthodoxies on campus—all of these create a censorious climate that inhibits open discussion, dialogue, and learning (13). Reports of self-censorship are increasing in frequency, with surveys of both students and faculty revealing an insidious climate of group conformity and an unwillingness to ask questions, offer alternatives, and engage in robust exchanges of ideas that advance richer classroom learning and more nuanced scholarly conversations that should be the goal of every institution (14).
Too often, we see the growth of a monoculture that silences and truncates more complex and open-ended thinking. This tendency occurs within the larger society, of course, with widespread self-censorship reported that creates a monoculture (15). However, that monoculture and growing intolerance associated with it are especially noted now within the academy. The academic monoculture was described in multiple sessions at the Stanford Academic Freedom Conference in November 2022, with faculty and campus leaders describing consequences for scholars in fields as wide-ranging as chemistry, biology, mathematics, psychology, anthropology, political science, classics, health policy, medicine, and law (16). (16) More recently, a group of scholars from multiple disciplines in the sciences and social sciences co-authored an article, “In Defense of Merit in Science,” (17) which describes the increasing assaults on the norms and practices of sound inquiry and investigation in scientific fields, which depend upon what they describe as “liberal epistemology.” This group of scholars insists on adhering to Mertonian norms: communalism (the community of scholars owns the intellectual property produced in their field); universalism (validity of research findings is not dependent on the identities of individual researchers—as opposed to their “lived experiences”); disinterestedness (research produced in disciplines is for the common good, not for personal gain); and organized skepticism (research should be subject to critical scrutiny and review by peers). This article and the ensuing debate about it provide further evidence of a monoculture in higher education growing out of the ideas of the Critical Social Justice.
Because of the growing conformity within higher education—and the culture within which academic libraries do their work, and the increasing ideological sameness within our professional associations—new partnerships and initiatives to increase diversity of thought, perspective, and action are becoming more important. Perspectives from others within and outside of academia matter more now in order to create a better environment for discussion, debate, decisions, and actions within the field. To use an ecosystem metaphor, ecological systems that become too monocultural will decline because of sameness. Fresh infusions of resources, elements, and nutrients are crucial not only to sustain an ecosystem, but also to reinvigorate it. Libraries live within a network of other organizations, communities, associations, and stakeholders—their own ecosystem—and seeking out a wider range of perspectives to overcome ideological conformity is now crucial. A flourishing ecosystem of thought and practice within librarianship will depend upon “green shoots” that will revivify it, but only through learning about new partners, and forging ties with them.
To help chart another path for our librarianship, I have sought out new initiatives where libraries--especially academic libraries, but with potential connections for others—may find opportunities for engagement in civil discourse, civic dialogue, and renewed citizenship. These projects and initiatives range from projects focused on improving classroom interactions and question-asking to those that elevate knowledge of government and citizen responsibilities. Some encourage spontaneous discussions and conversations; others offer guest speakers and carefully orchestrated programming. Some are well-known, and transcend specific institutions and are national in scale; while others are still emerging, and live within institutions with the goal of improving campus dialogue and climate for free expression. Some undertake their purpose alone, while others collaborate with other projects to enact change. The most salient feature of all of these projects is their support with foundational principles of free expression, openness to other perspectives, respect for others across lines of difference, and a willingness to find common ground where possible in the search for provisional truths about complex and contested issues. In short, these community-building institutions are oriented to truth-seeking as opposed to truth-affirming.
In effect, the truth-seeking role of the academy must be supported by a dialogic role for libraries—one that promotes intellectual pluralism among all stakeholders and constituents—students, faculty, administrators, and library staff themselves. Dialogic norms and truth-seeking that support a liberal version of social justice, as opposed to the “critical” version, can be created through principled neutrality, which Dudley and Wright describe as the foundation for a revitalized library mission in supporting diverse constituencies in a liberal democracy (18).
Examples of Civil Discourse Initiatives
Here is a sampling of the civil discourse and dialogue projects and initiatives, which are all dedicated to a dialogic purpose. They are arranged from classroom-level to campus level, to broader societal organizations that are broadly congruent with campus- and community-initiated initiatives. They are offered to illustrate the possibilities for librarians to develop new partnerships in order to stimulate free expression and viewpoint diversity on their own campus, but also to bring to awareness of the library profession itself new options for contributing to the intellectual life of the academy.
Classroom dialogue
University of Wisconsin professional development program for faculty, for training in promoting engaging classroom discussions with a wide range of students in challenging topics.
Originally the Open Mind project whose mission was to stimulate dialogue and discussion through pedagogical strategies for teachers and students to use in classrooms, to create discussions around challenging topics. Now renamed to focus on “dialogue” in wide-ranging way, within classrooms and beyond.
Campus or Institutional Initiatives
Deliberative Citizenship Initiative
Davidson College’s institute promoting better citizenship through constructive dialogue.
Duke University
Sponsored by the Kenan Institute at Duke, the Civil Discourse Project aims to promote greater understanding across lines of political and ideological difference. The Project offers seminars, courses, and lectures, and conducts research to advance civic dialogue and the search for truth among competing perspectives.
University of Virginia
This new initiative seeks to involve students in creating a culture of free expression, viewpoint diversity, critical thinking, intellectual humility, and community-building around this goal. The project offers videos, podcasts, essays, and webinars to support its mission.
University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill
A multi-dimensional program that teaches students how to engage in public deliberation and argument, that involves faculty in seminars in working with students on public discourse, and that reaches a larger public of alumni and citizens.
Arizona State University
Developed by the Center for Political Thought and Leadership at Arizona State, this initiative offers a specific curriculum on citizenship in order to cultivate students’ understanding of the American past and rights and responsibilities of citizens in the present.
National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement | University of California
University of California (system)
A comprehensive educational program addressing the connections between free expression and civic engagement, for students and faculty. This Center selects Fellows who engage in research on free speech and civic participation, sponsors multiple events, and works with campuses across the country to promote scholarship and interdisciplinary discussions of free speech and citizenship.
National Initiatives/Regional/General
College Debates and Discourse Alliance (partnership among ACTA, Braver Angels, and Bridge USA)
American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Braver Angels, and Bridge USA
The best-known of the national initiatives promoting discussion and debate across lines of difference, among students and citizens from multiple political perspectives and demographic groups.
Center for Public Deliberation
Colorado State University
The Center works with groups of citizens in Colorado to discuss and develop potential solutions for complex problems, using a particular deliberative methodology.
Exemplars from public and academic libraries
Some libraries already sponsor civil dialogue initiatives and resources that can serve as models and inspiration. Here are a few examples:
Denver Public Library
Different Perspectives, Civil Dialogue | Denver Public Library (denverlibrary.org)
University of Wisconsin/Stevens Point
University of Dayton
What Is Dialogue? - Dialogue Resources - Library Guides at University of Dayton (udayton.edu)
The Westport Library
About - Civil Discourse - LibGuides at The Westport Library
Recommendations for Partnerships
Librarians seeking to form partnerships with civic dialogue initiatives and groups will want to assess their campus or community environments carefully in order to advance form those partnerships. Some suggestions:
Understand first the political situation within which the potential partner lives, its origins, its institutional support, and its ongoing initiatives.
Review the mission statement to understand the purpose or telos of the partner initiative. All will have an overarching goal of promoting civic dialogue, but with different emphases: some focus on citizenship and increasing the practices of good citizenship; others will provide opportunities for civic dialogue and debate, as a linchpin for citizenship.
Approach the potential partner in a learning mode rather than with a preplanned agenda—always a wise approach in learning about a campus or community partner. Come with questions, engage in open-ended discussions, and find points where collective energies can be harnessed.
Promote the role of students, student groups, and student advocates who can be effective role models for other students in advancing civil dialogue.
Develop a network of faculty and librarian colleagues—a community of practice for civic dialogue—to plan and support a potential partnership, and to sustain it, and to create the psychological safety needed to support each other.
Sponsor public events on campus or in the community where viewpoint diversity is exhibited through the ethos of civic dialogue, particularly encouraging students to lead discussions in these venues.
The “green shoots” for a more engaged, less monocultural, more vibrant librarianship can develop from these partnerships, however emergent they may be—when combined with other initiatives. The growth of a new telos depends upon grassroots initiatives, conversations, and learning within the campus network—in effect, a counter-movement against the climate of self-censorship and lack of diversity of thought currently in place. This counter-movement can become a network of mutual and reinforcing influences, one that opens up possibilities for other partnerships. With an integral role in stimulating civil dialogue, libraries can flourish within revitalized campuses that coalesce freedom of thought and community formation together to create a more humane future for all.
Note: Many thanks to Michael Dudley, fellow HxLibraries member, for his comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Notes
*Rauch, Jonathan. (September 14, 2022). “Politicized Science is Neither Science Nor Progress.” The FIRE Newsletter [blog]. Available at: Nature Human Misbehavior: politicized science is neither science nor progress | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org)
(1) Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Government, 1958-2022.” June 6 2022. Available at: Public Trust in Government: 1958-2022 | Pew Research Center
(1) Pew Research Center. “Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Other Groups Declines.” February 15 2022. Available at: Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Other Groups Declines | Pew Research Center
(1) Pew Research Center. “Do Americans Trust the News Media?” January 5 2022. Available at: Do Americans trust the news media? | Pew Research Center
(1) Gallup, “Historically Low Faith in U.S. Institutions Continues.” July 6, 2023. Available at: Historically Low Faith in U.S. Institutions Continues (gallup.com)
(1) Gallup, “Americans’ Confidence in Higher Education Down Sharply.” July 11, 2023. Available at: Americans' Confidence in Higher Education Down Sharply (gallup.com)
(2) Pluckrose, Helen. (February 17, 2021). “What Do We Mean by Critical Social Justice?” Counterweight [website]. Available at: What do we Mean by Critical Social Justice - Counterweight (counterweightsupport.com)
(3) Haidt, Jonathan. (October 22, 2016). “Why Universities Mut Choose One Telos: Truth of Social Justice.” The Heterodox Academy [blog]. Available at: Why Universities Must Choose 1 Telos:Truth or Social Justice (heterodoxacademy.org). Other HxA members have taken different perspectives on Haidt’s initial blog post on the truth vs. social justice divide. See this link for other perspectives: Episode 1: Why Universities Must Choose One Telos: Truth or Social Justice — Heterodox Academy
(4) Bates, Susan. Banned Books: Is Nothing Off Limits in Schools? Deseret News, October 4, 2022. Available at: Banned books: Is nothing off limits in schools? | Opinion - Deseret News; “Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Ban Books.” PEN America. [blog]. Available at: Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Ban Books - PEN America
(5) Coleman, Joy. “Hamilton Library Updating Booking and Event Policies on Assumption Charter of Rights Will Apply.” The Public Record, Hamilton Ontario, February 18, 2021. Available at: Hamilton Library Updating Booking and Event Policies On Assumption Charter of Rights Will Apply | TPR Hamilton | Hamilton's Civic Affairs News Site (thepublicrecord.ca)H; Terr, Aaron. “America’s Public Libraries Must Not Take Up Arms in the Culture War.” [blog]. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, June 30, 2023. Available at: America’s public libraries must not take up arms in the culture war | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org)
(6) Schwing, John. “Library Agrees to Return Book on ‘Transgender Craze’ to Shelves,” Westport Journal, July 23, 2022. Available at: Library Agrees to Return Book on ‘Transgender Craze’ to Shelves | Westport Journal; Shrier, Abigail. “Abigail Shrier on Freedom in an Age of Fear.” The Free Press. [substack]. December 21, 2021. Available at: Abigail Shrier on Freedom in an Age of Fear | The Free Press (thefp.com)
(7) Nixon, Ella. “The Problem with Sensitivity Readers.” The New Taboo. [substack]. February 25, 2023. Available at: The problem with sensitivity readers - by Ella Nixon (substack.com)
(8) Urs, Medhini. “Ideological Mandates in Publishing: A Comment On Nature Human Behavior’s Guidelines for Publication.” HxSTEM. [substack]. October 22, 2022. Available at: Ideological Mandates in Publishing: A Comment on Nature Human Behaviour’s Guidelines for Publication (substack.com)
(9) Savolainen, Jukka. et. al. (2023). “Positionality and Its Problems: Questioning the Value of Reflexivity Statements in Research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221144988; “Springer to Retract a Key Paper in Response to Activist Demands.” June 10, 2023. Society for Evidenced-based Gender Medicine [website]. Available at: Springer to Retract a Key Paper in Response to Activist Demands | SEGM
(10) Elsevier, Inc. “Inclusion and Diversity.” [website]. Available at: Inclusion and diversity (elsevier.com); Muhinyi, Amber. (May 16, 2023). “DEI Initiatives Undermine Trust in the Editorial Process and Academic Publishing.” Just Another Point of View. [substack], Available at: : DEI initiatives undermine trust in the editorial process and academic publishing (substack.com)
(11) Association of College and Research Libraries. Home - ACRL Equity, Diversity and Inclusion - LibGuides at ACRL
(11) Public Library Association Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice | Public Library Association (PLA) (ala.org)
(12) Iyengar, Shanto, et. al. (2019). “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science, 22: 129-146. Available at: The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States | Annual Review of Political Science (annualreviews.org)
(13) FIRE. Scholars Under Fire Database. Scholars Under Fire Database Guide | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org); FIRE. Campus Disinvitation Database. User's Guide to FIRE's Campus Disinvitation Database | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org)
(14) Heterodox Academy Campus Expression Survey 2022 Campus Expression Survey Report — Heterodox Academy; Kaufmann, Eric. (March 1, 2021). “Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship.” CSPI Report No. 2, Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology. Available at: Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship - CSPI Center
(15) Gibson, James, and Joseph L Sutherland, (2023). “Keeping Your Mouth Shut: Spiraling Self-Censorship in the United States,” Political Science Quarterly, qqad037. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/psquar/qqad037
(16) Stanford Academic Freedom Conference, November 4-5, 2022. Presentation recordings available from conference program at: Academic Freedom Conference | Classical Liberalism Initiative (stanford.edu)
(17) Abbott, Dorian. et. al. (2023). “In Defense of Merit in Science.” The Journal of Controversial Ideas, 3 (1): 1-26. Available at: In Defense of Merit in Science (journalofcontroversialideas.org)
(18) Dudley, Michael, and John Wright. (Fall 2022). “The Role of Multidimensional Library Neutrality in Advancing Social Justice: Adapting Theoretical Foundations from Political Science and Urban Planning.” The Journal of Intellectual Freedom and Privacy, 7 (3): 1-20. Available at: The Role of Multidimensional Library Neutrality in Advancing Social Justice: Adapting Theoretical Foundations from Political Science and Urban Planning (uwinnipeg.ca)
To promote viewpoint diversity, Heterodoxy in the Stacks invites constructive dissent and disagreement in the form of guest posts. While articles published on Heterodoxy in the Stacks are not peer- or editorially-reviewed, all posts must model the HxA Way. Content is attributed to the individual contributor(s).
To submit an article for Heterodoxy in the Stacks, send an email with the article title, author name, and article document to hxlibsstack@gmail.com. Unless otherwise requested, posts will include the author’s name and the commenting feature will be on. Thank you for joining the conversation!
Excellent article Craig! Looking forward to the others in the series!
Excellent piece. Thanks for this! I am looking forward to reading the rest of the series.