How Big is Libraries' Insider Threat Problem?
For some library challenges to collections, programming, displays, and services, the calls are coming from inside the house.
The library profession need not reach a breaking point by bending so far to accommodate our activist wing that we sacrifice the heart of library work: facilitating intellectual freedom for people in our communities.
“Libraries are under siege,” portends one article, which goes on to describe how “U.S. libraries have become a battleground for political wrangling brought on by right-wing conservative activist groups.”
But if we expand our focus from libraries to consider intellectual freedom itself—“the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction”—we can see that the problem isn’t frontal assaults from one side, but a pincer maneuver from both the political right and the political left that threatens libraries’ core mission to provide “access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.”
The American Library Association (ALA)’s Office of Intellectual Freedom reports on library challenges initiated by library staff in Censorship by the Numbers. Admittedly (and thankfully), the rate of staff-initiated challenges is small: 3% in 2023. However, ALA also estimates that 82-97% of library challenges are never reported. What portion of those unreported challenges are initiated by library staff? And to what extent does viewpoint diversity, or lack thereof, influence staff-initiated library challenges and their reporting?
Librarian: Liberal White Female
Ask anyone to describe the typical library employee and they’ll (correctly) describe her as a white woman. According to the ALA’s most recent Diversity Counts data from 2012, the library profession is 88% white and 83% female. The career planning site Zippia reports marginally more moderate numbers: 77% white and 69% female.
Both profiles ignore a crucial data point for epistemic professions: political affiliation. Campaign contribution data reveals that library workers lean overwhelmingly left—in 2020, Bloomberg reported that librarians were among the 100 professions in which more workers donated to the Democrat candidate for US president, and Verdent Labs’ 2016 infographic shows that U.S. libraries employ 91 Democrats for every 9 Republicans.
The average library worker is even more likely to be politically left than to be white or female.
Political viewpoint and other personally-held values need not determine how a library employee conducts their work, or their commitment to upholding intellectual freedom. Indeed, the ALA Code of Ethics has expressly called on library professionals to
distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources.
Some version of this ethic to subordinate our personal beliefs in service to our communities and the performance of our professional duties appears in the Code of Ethics since 1981.
But something has changed.
The notion of institutional neutrality in libraries is undermined—from the political left. In one phenomenographic study, five of seven participants argued that neutrality should be abandoned in favor of advancing progressive causes. The library literature is replete with calls for library workers to act as activists and change agents.
Insider Threat
The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) defines insider threat as “the threat that an insider will use their authorized access, wittingly or unwittingly, to do harm to the department’s mission, resources, personnel, facilities, information, equipment, networks, or systems.”
When library workers’ professional actions interfere with our community members’ freedoms to read and view, to access “all points of view on current and historical issues,” and to enjoy privacy and confidentiality (including intellectual privacy) in the exercise of their freedom of expression, those actions constitute an insider threat to the intellectual freedom mission in libraries.
Evidence of an insider threat to intellectual freedom in libraries is anecdotal—the lowest rung on the ladder of evidence, but enough to prompt scholars of intellectual freedom in libraries to observe:
There is a certain proportion of librarians who do not adhere to the promises of the IFLA Statement [on Libraries and Intellectual Freedom], thereby creating an ethical void and, arguably, although with positive intentions, committing a disservice to their patrons. The exact proportion, however, is currently unknown.
These researchers go on to ask:
Is it a plurality?
Are there more librarians who contradict the IFLA Statement from the left or from the right?
Where are the most significant threats to intellectual freedom, and what should be done about them and by whom?
To what extent is intellectual freedom sacrificed for expediency, for self-advocacy, or for mere survival of the library itself?
Insider threats to intellectual freedom in libraries occur across a range of library operations, including collections, programming, displays, and services.
Insider Threat in Library Collections
In 2019, an essay characterizes “Whiteness as Collections”:
If you look at any United States library's collection, especially those in higher education institutions, most of the collections (books, journals, archival papers, other media, etc.) are written by white dudes writing about white ideas, white things, or ideas, people, and things they stole from POC and then claimed as white property…. Library collections continue to promote and proliferate whiteness with their very existence and the fact that they are physically taking up space in our libraries.
In 2019, a Canadian school board identified more than 4,700 children’s books for removal “that had outdated content and carried negative stereotypes about First Nations, Métis and Inuit people” and ritualistically burned them in a “flame purification” ceremony.
In February 2021, a public library employee was fired for “improperly removing items from the Library’s collection” and burning books. The burned books were written by politically conservative authors.
In March 2021, Ithaka S+R reported on National Movements for Racial Justice and Academic Library Leadership from the results of their US Library Survey 2020. Their survey found that 17% of library leader respondents agreed that “My library has well-developed strategies to decenter white authors and/or racist content and center the works of authors of color and/or anti-racist content.” The report distinguishes between “increas[ing] the number of items purchased that advance diversity and anti-racism in academic libraries”—a practice entirely consistent with intellectual freedom principles for academic libraries—and “how library leaders might decenter works by white authors and/or racist content,” a practice which implicates the Library Bill of Rights Article I, “Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.”
In January 2022, Bard College Stevenson Library announced
“a diversity audit of the entire print collection in an effort to begin the process of decanonizing the stacks. Three students, who are funded through the Office of Inclusive Excellence, have begun the process which we expect will take at least a year to complete. The students will be evaluating each book for representations of race/ethnicity, gender, religion, and ability.
In response, the chief librarian at another academic library characterized decanonization as “antithetical to our core mission. It also violates the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, a document adopted in 1939 as the rise of totalitarianism threatened liberal society.”
A 2023 analysis found that titles appearing on the ALA’s top ten banned books list—many of which feature anti-racist or LGBTQ+ themes, characters, or authors— were available in library collections at much higher rates than comparable, contemporary conservative works.
In 2023, library scholars called for “unsettling the library catalog”: “to make the work of reviewing and changing [Library of Congress or other classification] terms for cultural relevance and representation an iterative process.”
In February 2023, an anonymous “conservative public librarian” wrote about the exclusion of politically conservative materials from library collections:
Right leaning content has become stamped with a label of unfit due to “misinformation” or has been “fact checked” or absurdly donned “hate-speech.” “Censorship” of conservative and health freedom topics has not arisen in such books being challenged in our collections. Instead their censorship is absolute in that such books have been denied entry into our collections. Such books are simply not purchased for our collections and thus never make it to our shelves.
…I’ve tried relentlessly, through my own branch discretionary ordering and anonymously through our system’s public “Request a Title” option, to add new conservative centered and health freedom centered books to our collection. My continuous attempts have been entirely fruitless. None of the books I’ve requested, anonymously or as a highly qualified MLIS managerial librarian, have been honored.
In February 2024, the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom declined to provide support to a public library staff in Blue Hill, Maine, who made a unanimous decision to add a donated copy of Abigail Shrier’s book, Irreversible Damage, to the library’s collection despite public backlash.
In March 2024, the library CEO at a Canadian public library is fired for advocating for viewpoint diversity in library collections and for her association with the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.
In May 2024, an anonymous writer knowledgeable about contemporary library cataloging and resource description practices writes, “It seems that now the overriding duty of the cataloger is to protect the patrons from the harm that the records (not even the materials!) may cause them.”
Insider Threat to Library Programming
In March 2024, a public library executive director was fired following a highly successful Celebration of Palestinian Culture event because it was “not a library-led event.” The firing of the executive director—a Black woman—came amidst a library reorganization that eliminated two community engagement positions.
Insider Threat to Library Displays
In April 2023, an academic library employee objected to a community member response on a library display engagement board, resulting in the censorship of engagement boards from library displays.
Insider Threat to Library Services
In June 2018, academic library employees reported a colleagues’ online bibliography presenting “critical perspectives on the ‘implicit bias,’ ‘microaggression,’ and ‘stereotype threat’ research programs” to university administration, demanding it be censored. Under pressure from university administration, the creator of the bibliography agreed to republish it as a ‘private’ online guide that can only be accessed by direct link, significantly reducing its discoverability and accessibility. Hat-tip Rob Sica and Brian Erb.
In 2020, a library scholar advocated for library workers to promote social justice in their readers advisory services. They wrote, “Librarians’ obligation to advance democracy thus provides us with the justification for recommending diverse books to all readers, even those who actively disprefer them,” arguing that such recommendations “maximize social justice work while ‘minimally’ impairing patron autonomy through ‘nominally’ coercive means.”
In 2020, a library scholar advocated to “decolonize the library,” saying:
Decolonizing is not meant to exclude. When we talk about decolonizing a syllabus, or our libraries, publishing houses, or our professions, what we are talking about is decentering whiteness, and being more inclusive to voices of color and to voices that represent diverse perspectives.
In January 2023, a public library in Massachusetts reinstated a “Pastor Story Hour” on the advice of legal counsel after canceling the private event, claiming it violated library meeting room and acceptable behavior policies. Hat-tip mulhern.
In May 2023, a public library in Canada denied a room booking for an author talk on the topic of “Sex, Gender, and the Limits of Free Speech on Campus.” The Library administration claimed that the booking raised “multiple policy concerns” and cited the Library’s commitment to “anti-oppression,” while also claiming that “the Renter or Event content is or is likely to be in violation of Library policy, including, but not limited to, the Library’s Rules of Conduct, Charter of Library Use or Workplace Harassment and Sexual Harassment Prevention policies.” Hat-tip Amy Girard.
In May 2023, an academic librarian was “labeled a racist, placed on administrative leave, and targeted for firing” for linking to the Compendium of Free Black Thought from an online bibliography of Black writers.
In June 2023, the director of the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom “suggests libraries may use facially viewpoint-neutral policies for the purpose of preventing disfavored groups and individuals from accessing library space otherwise available for reservation by the public.”
In spring 2024, pro-Palestinian activists occupied Portland State University’s Millar Library for several days, denying access to the campus and local community and vandalizing the library building, fire safety system, furniture, technology, and some books, causing at least $750,000 in damage. Interim dean of the library Michael Bowman asked, “What right did they — a couple score of student protesters — have to deny the space and the services and the collections to the 21,000 other students at the university?” University President Ann Cudd reported, “In recent days, I've been meeting with different groups of students and community members who are angry about how long we allowed the library occupation, about why we worked with the police to clear it, and the climate on campus, which feels very fraught.” The Library Closure FAQs [archived versions] provide a sense of the disruption to basic library services. The library hopes to reopen for the fall 2024 term.
In May 2024, a library scholar demonstrated how library and information science scholarship advocating for a shift away from neutrality manifests in professional policies, guidelines, and practices. Hat-tip Brian Erb.
In May 2024, Yolo County Library officials reached an out-of-court settlement for violating the First Amendment rights of a speaker at a community-led panel event held in a library meeting space. Library staff shut down the event, “Forum on Fair and Safe Sports for Girls,” hosted by Yolo County’s Moms for Liberty chapter after alleging that the speaker ‘misgendered’ a general reference to transgender athletes. As part of the settlement, the library system agreed to “update their policies which will now mandate that employees ‘shall not interfere with presentations or other speech by individuals or groups that have reserved meeting rooms based on the content of such speech’ and to instruct staff to ‘curtail any disruptive behavior’ during events.”
In June 2024, a public library in Canada received a legal warning letter advising it not to cancel an event organized by people who oppose a proposal to rename Powell River. “At the request of nearby Tla’amin First Nation, the City is debating whether to change its name to something other than ‘Powell River’ due to Tla’amin’s claim that the city’s namesake, Israel Wood Powell (1836-1915), was involved in the residential school system. Powell was appointed superintendent of Indian affairs in British Columbia in October 1872.”
Insider Threat to Library Workers’ Civil Rights
In summer 2020, a librarian was fired from his public library job for responding to a professional listserv advocating that it remain politically neutral on the subject of Black Lives Matter.
In May 2024, a library scholar described how some approaches to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) professional development in libraries violate library employees’ intellectual privacy, freedom of conscience, and freedom of thought.
In June 2024, a public library settled by consent decree with a former Assistant Library Director who was fired for her constitutionally-protected, private speech. The Assistant Library Director was expressly terminated for recruiting and endorsing Republican political candidates for elected library trustee offices on her own (non-work) time and at her own expense. The consent decree acknowledges that “the Dudley-Tucker Library regrets its conduct toward [Plaintiff] and the violation of Plaintiff []’s constitutional rights.” Hat-tip Amy Girard.
Adapting for Insider Threat
On the surface, it appears that libraries’ ethical commitment to intellectual freedom is itself a vulnerability to insider threat. In certain circumstances, the employee need only appeal to the libraries’ own policies and statements regarding intellectual freedom and related freedoms, such as academic freedom, to justify their decisions and performance. And they may well be correct to do so.
An executive-level library professional reportedly characterized intellectual freedom as “gross.” It’s their right to hold and express this opinion. Librarianship is robust enough to field, and challenge, such perspectives. The strategy for addressing insider threat isn’t to back down from our commitments to intellectual and expressive freedoms—it’s to double down on them. Library workers who see these intellectual freedom affronts occurring must name and confront them, including by community-supported means (such as in Blue Hill, Maine). Our service communities—all members of our service communities—deserve to know what is happening in libraries, and for their interests, needs, concerns, and values to be considered in library operations and services.
The library profession need not reach a breaking point by bending so far to accommodate our activist wing that we sacrifice the heart of library work: facilitating intellectual freedom for people in our communities. Instead, let’s exercise counterspeech to identify these insider threats; describe them to our colleagues and community members; evaluate them in light of our professional ethics, policies, and guidelines; consider what they mean for libraries and the communities we serve; and continue telling the story of intellectual freedom, its place in libraries, and its function in an enlightened self-governing society.
Don’t mistake the strength of intellectual freedom for a weakness. We have room for people to advocate activism in libraries, and we have room for people to point out the risks of this revolutionary bent and to propose a different approach. We have platforms for offering professional workshops on the concepts and practical applications of intellectual freedom. We have methods for empirically evaluating the salience of intellectual freedom to the profession, and outlets for debating what the future of intellectual freedom in libraries—and the communities we serve—will look like.
There is room to debate, learn, study, and practice librarianship in a diverse array of ways. And we have intellectual freedom to thank for all of it.
Sarah Hartman-Caverly is an associate librarian with Penn State University Libraries at Penn State Berks. Her scholarship examines the compatibility of human and machine autonomy from the perspective of intellectual freedom.
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 and comments must model the HxA Way. Content is attributed to the individual contributor(s).
To submit an article for Heterodoxy in the Stacks, see Information for Writers and submit the Heterodoxy in the Stacks Guest Submission form in the format of a Microsoft Word document, PDF, or a Google Doc. Unless otherwise requested, posts will include the author’s name and the commenting feature will be on. We understand that sharing diverse viewpoints can be risky, both professionally and personally, so anonymous and pseudonymous posts are allowed.
Thank you for joining the conversation!
Thank you Sarah for this excellent, well-organized, and timely summary of this troubling phenomenon.
Due to the some of the questionable practices of the review journals and the disruption of the publishing industry in general, I think (public) libraries, under the "popular demand" section of their collection development plans, should make it a policy to routinely purchase Amazon bestsellers (although with all the various categories the approach would have to be well thought out).