Books about Holocaust denialism like any books that counter objective facts have a place in public places. Those places can be organized in such a way that factual materials are there to counteract the denial. Otherwise, the denialist books circulate in strange places where they are hard to discount. What does it mean for a library to have books? Does it mean that every librarian attests to the content of each book? Would a Protestant librarian approve a book about the Vatican? Would an atheist librarian approve a book about the Lives of the Saints?
I agree with your main point. Presence in a library's collection _should_have nothing to do with whether the item is conformable to librarians' own views.
But I also have a quibble.
There are some good books about flat earth-ism out there, and I guess they have their call numbers. And I think that a book that asserted the earth was flat would probably not be shelved in the geology section of your local library.
But history is _much_ harder to make certain judgements of that nature on. I'm happy for there to be a category of books about books that try to minimize Nazi-this or anti-Jewish that. But I don't think there should be a category for "holocaust denial" literature at all. It becomes a slush category where people then put every opinion about the Nazis or the situation of the Jews under Nazi Germany that they do not like or agree with. Those "holocaust denial" books should be shoved in with the rest of the history of that period, and readers will just have to learn to cope. If the shelves of all the history sections aren't rife with contradiction then that is just proof positive that you are in a biased library. And such a situations breeds stupid readers who can't cope with the idea that two different books about the same historical events may yield different narratives because they are written by different people with different motivations, backgrounds, and understanding.
I think LoC is a bit of an ass. This (https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh96009499.html) is the classification that I argue should not exist. Maybe I would change my mind if I read some, but I haven't. So for now, that's how I see it.
Thanks, John, for another excellent article in this series. This is a riveting account of a "purity spiral" in action in a major professional association, revealing much about the values and priorities of those involved in the "spiral" or the mobbing. The particular controversy in question here, books on Holocaust denialism, could be replicated with numerous other controversial topics that become taboo, and supposedly incapable of adult discussion because of "harm" (and the concept creep for "harm" has become noticeable in our field in recent years).
I'm glad to see that you focused as much as you did on the fraught term "misinformation" and many librarians' casual or careless use of it. Of course, the word is used casually or carelessly by many in the broader culture, and notoriously and often by politicians, journalists, and owners of large social media platforms, who do much to amplify conspiracy theories, half-truths, lies, and falsehoods, creating a polluted information environment. I'm thinking especially here of (X) and its algorithms and the behavior of its owner, but other platforms create similar conditions for tribalistic distortions of reality.
As for the term "misinformation" itself, I'd recommend anyone who's interested in a better conceptual approach to it to read Dan Williams' valuable substack, Conspicuous Cognition, and especially this article:
Also, scholar of conspiracy theories Joe Uscinski has urged a cautious approach to studying and writing about "misinformation"--librarians are now at the point where they think they can use reductive methods to teach about it when it actually requires much more (and broader) considerations about social change, belief formation, and the role of inquiry itself. Uscinski's recent co-authored article urges greater care since there's a careful delineation to be made between Information that is objectively false, and information that is subjectively believed because of the receiver's own cognitive biases or tribal affiliations.
An effort exists to get suppressed books into libraries: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61556735437296 . It's mine. I myself don't have a strong bias; but since the suppressors in Massachusetts sure do the book selection does. Not my fault. If the industry and the libraries would stop suppressing "misinformation" and items that might cause "harm" I could stop compiling lists of books they've suppressed. Interim findings are here: https://insidelowell.com/books-actually-banned-in-massachusetts/ .
From Sherman Alexie, "The right are censorship vikings; the left are censorship ninjas." Unfortunately some of the ninjas are librarians themselves refusing to stock certain titles that they deem as misinformation, some of which have turned out to be accurate.
The clear hypocrisy of the ALA's anti censorship position, and their conflation of censorship with school curriculum choices, are part of how they have lost relevancy as a voice for intellectual freedom.
"Conservatives censor where it counts — and can be countered. Liberal-progressives control the means of production, marketing, and distribution in culture, media, and education, with many more levers to pull to ensure some ideas never see the light of day without us even knowing.
"As a free speech maximalist and freedom to read advocate, I’d much prefer to engage an opponent who attacks in the open than one who operates in the shadows."
"We might be divided about who should win an election, but we were never divided about who had won an election" -- actually this is untrue (thinking of Gore vs. Bush in 2000). The relentless bandying about of the word "misinformation" in the press has really made people close-minded in very detrimental ways. If someone disagrees with me now, rather than discuss the issue with me or read any articles I might present that have led me to my viewpoint, that person will spend hours digging up "fact checks" to prove me wrong. The infantilization is real.
Books about Holocaust denialism like any books that counter objective facts have a place in public places. Those places can be organized in such a way that factual materials are there to counteract the denial. Otherwise, the denialist books circulate in strange places where they are hard to discount. What does it mean for a library to have books? Does it mean that every librarian attests to the content of each book? Would a Protestant librarian approve a book about the Vatican? Would an atheist librarian approve a book about the Lives of the Saints?
Here is the LC on the topic of Holocaust denial:
https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh96009499.html
I agree with your main point. Presence in a library's collection _should_have nothing to do with whether the item is conformable to librarians' own views.
But I also have a quibble.
There are some good books about flat earth-ism out there, and I guess they have their call numbers. And I think that a book that asserted the earth was flat would probably not be shelved in the geology section of your local library.
But history is _much_ harder to make certain judgements of that nature on. I'm happy for there to be a category of books about books that try to minimize Nazi-this or anti-Jewish that. But I don't think there should be a category for "holocaust denial" literature at all. It becomes a slush category where people then put every opinion about the Nazis or the situation of the Jews under Nazi Germany that they do not like or agree with. Those "holocaust denial" books should be shoved in with the rest of the history of that period, and readers will just have to learn to cope. If the shelves of all the history sections aren't rife with contradiction then that is just proof positive that you are in a biased library. And such a situations breeds stupid readers who can't cope with the idea that two different books about the same historical events may yield different narratives because they are written by different people with different motivations, backgrounds, and understanding.
D804.355 is where LoC places these books.
I think LoC is a bit of an ass. This (https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh96009499.html) is the classification that I argue should not exist. Maybe I would change my mind if I read some, but I haven't. So for now, that's how I see it.
Thanks, John, for another excellent article in this series. This is a riveting account of a "purity spiral" in action in a major professional association, revealing much about the values and priorities of those involved in the "spiral" or the mobbing. The particular controversy in question here, books on Holocaust denialism, could be replicated with numerous other controversial topics that become taboo, and supposedly incapable of adult discussion because of "harm" (and the concept creep for "harm" has become noticeable in our field in recent years).
I'm glad to see that you focused as much as you did on the fraught term "misinformation" and many librarians' casual or careless use of it. Of course, the word is used casually or carelessly by many in the broader culture, and notoriously and often by politicians, journalists, and owners of large social media platforms, who do much to amplify conspiracy theories, half-truths, lies, and falsehoods, creating a polluted information environment. I'm thinking especially here of (X) and its algorithms and the behavior of its owner, but other platforms create similar conditions for tribalistic distortions of reality.
As for the term "misinformation" itself, I'd recommend anyone who's interested in a better conceptual approach to it to read Dan Williams' valuable substack, Conspicuous Cognition, and especially this article:
https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/what-is-misinformation-anyway
Also, scholar of conspiracy theories Joe Uscinski has urged a cautious approach to studying and writing about "misinformation"--librarians are now at the point where they think they can use reductive methods to teach about it when it actually requires much more (and broader) considerations about social change, belief formation, and the role of inquiry itself. Uscinski's recent co-authored article urges greater care since there's a careful delineation to be made between Information that is objectively false, and information that is subjectively believed because of the receiver's own cognitive biases or tribal affiliations.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X24000022
An effort exists to get suppressed books into libraries: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61556735437296 . It's mine. I myself don't have a strong bias; but since the suppressors in Massachusetts sure do the book selection does. Not my fault. If the industry and the libraries would stop suppressing "misinformation" and items that might cause "harm" I could stop compiling lists of books they've suppressed. Interim findings are here: https://insidelowell.com/books-actually-banned-in-massachusetts/ .
From Sherman Alexie, "The right are censorship vikings; the left are censorship ninjas." Unfortunately some of the ninjas are librarians themselves refusing to stock certain titles that they deem as misinformation, some of which have turned out to be accurate.
The clear hypocrisy of the ALA's anti censorship position, and their conflation of censorship with school curriculum choices, are part of how they have lost relevancy as a voice for intellectual freedom.
shameless plug -- Alexie's observation is explored at length in this post: https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/conservatives-censor-where-it-counts
"Conservatives censor where it counts — and can be countered. Liberal-progressives control the means of production, marketing, and distribution in culture, media, and education, with many more levers to pull to ensure some ideas never see the light of day without us even knowing.
"As a free speech maximalist and freedom to read advocate, I’d much prefer to engage an opponent who attacks in the open than one who operates in the shadows."
I was not aware of his quote, but it's spot on!
"We might be divided about who should win an election, but we were never divided about who had won an election" -- actually this is untrue (thinking of Gore vs. Bush in 2000). The relentless bandying about of the word "misinformation" in the press has really made people close-minded in very detrimental ways. If someone disagrees with me now, rather than discuss the issue with me or read any articles I might present that have led me to my viewpoint, that person will spend hours digging up "fact checks" to prove me wrong. The infantilization is real.
"fact checks" that cite the opinions of "experts"! :rofl: