Heated rhetoric around library book challenges and cancel culture obscures an important fact: censorship is broadly unpopular, and people love free expression.
I really, really want to push back against the advice about how to handle book banning requests (copied and pasted below). These are techniques appropriate to therapy and (possibly) parenting. They are absolute CHEEK from public employees. Approaching the public in this way is incredibly patronizing: "oh we hear your widdle concerny-wornies and we see that you are upset and having lots of feelings"
If you are a public employee, you are a grown up speaking to fellow grown ups in a relationship of equality. A respectful response to a request for banning would be: "we don't ban books as a matter of principle, but can you suggest an acquisition that articulates the critique you are making? We'd be happy to add it to our collection if so".
And then... you actually follow up if they make such a suggestion. Even if it articulates a view you find very distasteful. Stock the book that is a take-down of Abigail Shrier alongside Abigail Shrier. Respond to requests for book censorship with requests for book acquisition.
>> Listen to what the issue is and the person's concerns.
Offer reflective comments to show that you have heard what their concerns are.
Wait until the person has released their frustration and explained how they are feeling.
Look and maintain appropriate eye contact to connect with the person.
Incline your head slightly, to show you are listening and give you a non-threatening posture.
Nod to confirm that you are listening and have understood.
I agree that all this empathy and understanding is to demand way too much of library staff, who are probably trying to checkout books, supply hold requests, tell people where the bathrooms are, etc. And there's no reason to believe that it will help the patron either. If a patron is objecting to the presence of an item, that patron is already upset. Most people don't want to make that kind of fuss, and so by the time that happens, the patron has likely overcome an inhibition or two and is stressed out from the effort. Or else, they're the kind of person who likes to confront people, and then the staff member will end up harassed by a practiced harasser. As I say in my comment, the thing for the staff to be trained to do is thank them and tell them what the re-evaluation process is and send them on their way in a manner that is as close to routine as it can possibly be made. Do that often enough, and patrons will learn the process, just like they will eventually learn self checkout, and patrons and staff will both be better off.
Thank you for saying this! I enjoyed the article and I agree with many of the points the author made, but if I had a concern about a book and I got that kind of treatment from the library employee, I would be furious.
I think you're correct in addressing the rhetoric. But I think the first thing that would make book bans boring is to avoid the rhetoric of "banning" in the first place. Moving a book from the children's section to the YA section, or from YA to the adult fiction, is not a "ban;" in a school, moving a book from the grade 6 reading list to the grade 9 reading list is not a "ban." Much of what falls under this label simply doesn't qualify as censorship per se. The ability to file requests for reconsideration has been a standard part of collection development in public libraries for decades; to now condemn all such filings as "bans" or "challenges" is a tad disingenuous. Another measure for lowering the temperature (as I've pointed out elsewhere on this Substack) is to be careful about always ascribing such objections to bad-faith motivations such as "hate" and "bigotry", which automatically pits the library in opposition to its stakeholder communities, instead of acknowledging that community members may have good faith concerns. That said, yes, "robo-filings" against dozens of titles at once is not acceptable.
I think that, sadly, many librarians have trapped themselves in the belief that any disagreement by a patron with any decision that the library makes must be attributable to "bigotry". Or else, they've lost track of the actual, useful, meaning of "bigotry" and simply think of it as another word for disagreement and "bigot" as just another word for "person who is presently disagreeing with me". That word, like so many these days, is thrown around way too freely.
Great article. I am impressed (but not surprised) by the survey indicating that 99% of Americans support freedom of speech. Frequently, I'll hear Americans celebrate free speech in the very same sentence that ends with a call for censorship: "Of course, the 1st Amendment is extremely important to me, but this or that just goes too far. It's dangerous..." Hypocrisy is the inevitable tribute that vice pays to virtue in American censorship. It illustrates the power of basic ideal of free expression, but makes it hard for us to identify and agree on what actually counts as censorship, or a "book ban" for that matter.
As a former library trustee I support the idea of every library having a formal process for what should always be called "re-evaluation requests" and never "challenges" or "bans". As Michael Dudley points out requests vary. Also, I believe that if a patron approaches a library staff member to complain about a book, the patron should be directed as smoothly and rapidly as possible to the formal process. It is rare that the person at the check out or reference desk is also head of circulation; likely they have no control over what items are purchased anyway. If I were a library director, I would have little informational cards printed out and placed at the checkout and reference desks and the staff trained to say to any patron where it was appropriate: "Thank you for taking an interest in the library's collection. We have a formal item re-evaluation process in place. Here is the information about the process. We look forward to your submission." and then hand them the card.
I have written in a previous article "The Yearly Charade of Banned Books Week" about the problem of censorship by libraries and really the whole publishing industry. I sometimes request books, and the libraries then do not purchase them (evidently for ideological rather than practical reasons). This is a fairly rare occurrence, but it does happen, and it is never edifying. I haven't yet done this, but I think it is quite reasonable to adapt the re-evaluation request process, so long as your library has one, to address censorship by the library.
I think that if your library does not have a formal re-evaluation request in place, that you should request that they put one in place, promptly.
I am all in favor of making library material re-evaluation requests boring and utterly routine. Any library should have routines that it expects to follow to facilitate its working well with the community it is supposed to serve. A re-evaluation procedure is just one part of this larger whole. I'm linking here to the text of the most recent re-evaluation request I filed with my local library (2024 March 3): https://phrynichos.substack.com/p/request-for-reconsideration-of-library. Things to notice: (1) My library sends out a form. I have more to say than will fit in the form, so I make up my own document, but I put in the questions from the form. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. (2) You can tell by the questions on the form that the persons who drew up the form assumed that the library would be in an adversarial position with the person filling out the form. That is no way to approach an interaction with a member of the community and a long-time patron and the library should rectify that. (3) I'm entirely correct about the book, the library had mis-catalogued it, probably in the distant past. The library made the decision to purchase a new copy of the book, and it is now assigned the DDN 261.2, which is much more appropriate. It is not at all unsurprising that a library, with thousands of books, would have quite a number of mistakes on its shelves. (4) The library did not accede to my book purchase request, for an audio version of "Flights of Fancy" by Richard Dawkins, however, which is a bit disappointing. But the staff may have been in too much of a hurry to notice.
This is a great piece with a lot of practical suggestions!
I really, really want to push back against the advice about how to handle book banning requests (copied and pasted below). These are techniques appropriate to therapy and (possibly) parenting. They are absolute CHEEK from public employees. Approaching the public in this way is incredibly patronizing: "oh we hear your widdle concerny-wornies and we see that you are upset and having lots of feelings"
If you are a public employee, you are a grown up speaking to fellow grown ups in a relationship of equality. A respectful response to a request for banning would be: "we don't ban books as a matter of principle, but can you suggest an acquisition that articulates the critique you are making? We'd be happy to add it to our collection if so".
And then... you actually follow up if they make such a suggestion. Even if it articulates a view you find very distasteful. Stock the book that is a take-down of Abigail Shrier alongside Abigail Shrier. Respond to requests for book censorship with requests for book acquisition.
>> Listen to what the issue is and the person's concerns.
Offer reflective comments to show that you have heard what their concerns are.
Wait until the person has released their frustration and explained how they are feeling.
Look and maintain appropriate eye contact to connect with the person.
Incline your head slightly, to show you are listening and give you a non-threatening posture.
Nod to confirm that you are listening and have understood.
Express empathy to show you have understood.>>
I agree that all this empathy and understanding is to demand way too much of library staff, who are probably trying to checkout books, supply hold requests, tell people where the bathrooms are, etc. And there's no reason to believe that it will help the patron either. If a patron is objecting to the presence of an item, that patron is already upset. Most people don't want to make that kind of fuss, and so by the time that happens, the patron has likely overcome an inhibition or two and is stressed out from the effort. Or else, they're the kind of person who likes to confront people, and then the staff member will end up harassed by a practiced harasser. As I say in my comment, the thing for the staff to be trained to do is thank them and tell them what the re-evaluation process is and send them on their way in a manner that is as close to routine as it can possibly be made. Do that often enough, and patrons will learn the process, just like they will eventually learn self checkout, and patrons and staff will both be better off.
That’s an interesting and compelling take. It kinda shows how much counselling counter has infiltrated government based public service.
Thank you for saying this! I enjoyed the article and I agree with many of the points the author made, but if I had a concern about a book and I got that kind of treatment from the library employee, I would be furious.
I think you're correct in addressing the rhetoric. But I think the first thing that would make book bans boring is to avoid the rhetoric of "banning" in the first place. Moving a book from the children's section to the YA section, or from YA to the adult fiction, is not a "ban;" in a school, moving a book from the grade 6 reading list to the grade 9 reading list is not a "ban." Much of what falls under this label simply doesn't qualify as censorship per se. The ability to file requests for reconsideration has been a standard part of collection development in public libraries for decades; to now condemn all such filings as "bans" or "challenges" is a tad disingenuous. Another measure for lowering the temperature (as I've pointed out elsewhere on this Substack) is to be careful about always ascribing such objections to bad-faith motivations such as "hate" and "bigotry", which automatically pits the library in opposition to its stakeholder communities, instead of acknowledging that community members may have good faith concerns. That said, yes, "robo-filings" against dozens of titles at once is not acceptable.
I think that, sadly, many librarians have trapped themselves in the belief that any disagreement by a patron with any decision that the library makes must be attributable to "bigotry". Or else, they've lost track of the actual, useful, meaning of "bigotry" and simply think of it as another word for disagreement and "bigot" as just another word for "person who is presently disagreeing with me". That word, like so many these days, is thrown around way too freely.
Great article. I am impressed (but not surprised) by the survey indicating that 99% of Americans support freedom of speech. Frequently, I'll hear Americans celebrate free speech in the very same sentence that ends with a call for censorship: "Of course, the 1st Amendment is extremely important to me, but this or that just goes too far. It's dangerous..." Hypocrisy is the inevitable tribute that vice pays to virtue in American censorship. It illustrates the power of basic ideal of free expression, but makes it hard for us to identify and agree on what actually counts as censorship, or a "book ban" for that matter.
Thanks, this is a great piece. I think reconsideration requests do need to be approached in good faith and without bias as to the point of view.
As a former library trustee I support the idea of every library having a formal process for what should always be called "re-evaluation requests" and never "challenges" or "bans". As Michael Dudley points out requests vary. Also, I believe that if a patron approaches a library staff member to complain about a book, the patron should be directed as smoothly and rapidly as possible to the formal process. It is rare that the person at the check out or reference desk is also head of circulation; likely they have no control over what items are purchased anyway. If I were a library director, I would have little informational cards printed out and placed at the checkout and reference desks and the staff trained to say to any patron where it was appropriate: "Thank you for taking an interest in the library's collection. We have a formal item re-evaluation process in place. Here is the information about the process. We look forward to your submission." and then hand them the card.
I have written in a previous article "The Yearly Charade of Banned Books Week" about the problem of censorship by libraries and really the whole publishing industry. I sometimes request books, and the libraries then do not purchase them (evidently for ideological rather than practical reasons). This is a fairly rare occurrence, but it does happen, and it is never edifying. I haven't yet done this, but I think it is quite reasonable to adapt the re-evaluation request process, so long as your library has one, to address censorship by the library.
I think that if your library does not have a formal re-evaluation request in place, that you should request that they put one in place, promptly.
I am all in favor of making library material re-evaluation requests boring and utterly routine. Any library should have routines that it expects to follow to facilitate its working well with the community it is supposed to serve. A re-evaluation procedure is just one part of this larger whole. I'm linking here to the text of the most recent re-evaluation request I filed with my local library (2024 March 3): https://phrynichos.substack.com/p/request-for-reconsideration-of-library. Things to notice: (1) My library sends out a form. I have more to say than will fit in the form, so I make up my own document, but I put in the questions from the form. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. (2) You can tell by the questions on the form that the persons who drew up the form assumed that the library would be in an adversarial position with the person filling out the form. That is no way to approach an interaction with a member of the community and a long-time patron and the library should rectify that. (3) I'm entirely correct about the book, the library had mis-catalogued it, probably in the distant past. The library made the decision to purchase a new copy of the book, and it is now assigned the DDN 261.2, which is much more appropriate. It is not at all unsurprising that a library, with thousands of books, would have quite a number of mistakes on its shelves. (4) The library did not accede to my book purchase request, for an audio version of "Flights of Fancy" by Richard Dawkins, however, which is a bit disappointing. But the staff may have been in too much of a hurry to notice.