The American Library Association is considering replacing the principle of library neutrality with other concepts, like "radical empathy." Why that would be a mistake.
This ALA proposition is an effect of the changing in the profession, not a cause, though it would certainly codify the change. Emphasizing "radical empathy" as opposed to neutrality, also erodes trust between librarians and library staff. As the profession embraces an explicitly political position, those library workers who do not share the far Left/progressive values are increasingly unwelcome even now; codifying the position would force (is forcing) many out of the field and prevent some people from ever entering the field.
I have a huge problem with the title of this article ... 'core values' have a specific meaning (at least within ALA), and some of what this article discusses does not address the officially adopted Core Values. I was intimately involved in the original statement. It was not an easy process to create the current statement (expanded/amended in 2019). You can find that statement here:
As a non-librarian, I'm interested to understand better the conditions in which this new proposal is being made. What is the job market like for new young library science grads? Bad or good?
I'd be very surprised to learn that it is good. I've come to the point of view that these declarations of "we are now 100% changing the rules of how you get to enter and work in this profession in which the jobs are pretty cool and interesting and high status" are about what Peter Turchin calls elite overproduction and the frustrated desire of new entrants to land berths. There simply are not enough berths in the system as it stands... but if the system could be shaken up in a foundational way? Surely some old folks would fall out and some young folks could scramble in.
As much as I agree with the arguments made here that "neutrality" is preferable to "empathy as defined by ME", I don't think this is a situation that will be resolved on the terrain of "persuasive intellectual rhetoric A goes mano a mano with persuasive intellectual rhetoric B"
It's really a fight over resources and indicates something pretty awful about resource allocation at present. If the traditional value librarians had something other than rhetoric to offer new young librarians -- if there were many real, paying avenues into the profession -- I don't think this fight would be happening.
In sum: I'm politically and intellectually sympathetic to traditional librarianship. But I see why the younger generation is mad and frustrated about their prospects, and if we don't figure out how to help them, these resource-allocation challenges framed as values-challenges are going to continue.
I'm in accord with your sentiments completely. A couple of quick comments. It's always about resources, particularly here in Alberta post-secondaries right now, as you know. Nor is the job market in Canada particularly strong (I cannot speak for the US). This isn't really about intellectual rhetorical challenges though; underlying it is how libraries put boundaries on their professional responsibilities, and how they communicate those responsibilities to 'stakeholders'. The argument we're making in the letter is for 'professional neutrality' (the old civil service ethos, if you like) and focusing resources on services and collections for their communities, not a mission creep to save all humanity. Moreover, it is strongly aimed at using good processes - including not judging users or dismissing their needs - to ensure engagement and inclusion in the library mission for library staff and for its communities of users. I strongly agree with you that inclusion and openness are core to helping all who are disengaged find a more welcoming home in libraries. And we need a younger, more diverse staff (see above about job opportunities). Finally, a more radical wording that defines the proposition is always a harder sell for funding, which does affect resources. In short: I think the changing of ALA wording will damage these goals by removing ethical and professional boundaries, and affect public support.
I am in agreement with the authors, especially with their criticism of the the notion that there is a correct set of values and it is those of the political left. This is likely to have unfortunate consequences for the decisions funding agencies make about libraries and librarians. Our professional development should include workshops on empathy, the persistence of racism and ethnic prejudice, and how to deal with all patrons respectfully, among a variety of other topics.
I'd like you to discuss more regarding your views on the "the kind of polarization and partisan wrangling now eroding the public's confidence in teachers and public schools." You're implying in your text that such "erosion" is somehow warranted and prop up an undefended position that "much of the public" actually believes that public educators are somehow radical leftists.
Further, you argue that "it is easy to imagine conservative legislators questioning why they deserve taxpayer funding, or such autonomy, if they’re not going to represent the interests of all citizens." Who are these conservative legislators and present their bona fides to support your position. The only conservative legislators who you would ask us not to anger seem to argue against any form of inclusion or worthwhile educational enterprise seeking to help students and others understand what it means to live in a diverse, liberal democracy.
I want to give your arguments a chance, but your claims in the paragraph from which I've quoted dissolve your reputational foundation and limit my belief that you are attempting to authentically participate in this debate.
This is an excellent, well-reasoned letter! I hope this discussion continues throughout the profession. From conversations I've had with fellow public librarians, I believe there are many of us who still believe that neutrality in library services is a goal towards which we should be striving. Thank you for sharing this!
This is an excellent letter (which I stumbled upon only recently). I tried to find out what actually happened with the Intellectual Freedom and Social Justice WG proposal, but the trail seems to have gone cold. Was the effort simply dropped?
This letter contains such a rich discussion of the democratic sensibilities American libraries are built on! I've often marveled at how open-minded and welcoming librarians are in responding to my questions and requests. I'm sure there are clunkers out there, but the standard of neutrality has given me the confidence to ask about nearly anything over the years. This letter points out that the insidious drive to change one of the true strengths of our culture is also at work in some of the "quiet" corners of society. Yikes.
I view these issues through a developmental lens. We usually start out looking for information confirming out current views. Traditionalists might come to the library looking for justification for their views and stumble on a book about the awakening of a former white nationalist. A Modernist might discover a writer who captures a Traditional religious view that is consistent with their thinking. A Postmodernist could find a book about the Civil Rights movement reminding them of one of the great achievements of the Modern movement. Finally, the Post Progressive shakes off these natural, parochial worldviews and takes an overall developmental approach so we can meet the individual where they are now and trust that friendly professional service will help them learn and grow. If libraries are forced to force a viewpoint, we demonstrate that we don't trust people to grow.
This ALA proposition is an effect of the changing in the profession, not a cause, though it would certainly codify the change. Emphasizing "radical empathy" as opposed to neutrality, also erodes trust between librarians and library staff. As the profession embraces an explicitly political position, those library workers who do not share the far Left/progressive values are increasingly unwelcome even now; codifying the position would force (is forcing) many out of the field and prevent some people from ever entering the field.
This is the type of discussion that is needed to understand and analyze the proposal.
I have a huge problem with the title of this article ... 'core values' have a specific meaning (at least within ALA), and some of what this article discusses does not address the officially adopted Core Values. I was intimately involved in the original statement. It was not an easy process to create the current statement (expanded/amended in 2019). You can find that statement here:
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/corevalues
I would also note that the initial link is for the beginning of a discussion. If you are concerned, be part of the discussion.
As a non-librarian, I'm interested to understand better the conditions in which this new proposal is being made. What is the job market like for new young library science grads? Bad or good?
I'd be very surprised to learn that it is good. I've come to the point of view that these declarations of "we are now 100% changing the rules of how you get to enter and work in this profession in which the jobs are pretty cool and interesting and high status" are about what Peter Turchin calls elite overproduction and the frustrated desire of new entrants to land berths. There simply are not enough berths in the system as it stands... but if the system could be shaken up in a foundational way? Surely some old folks would fall out and some young folks could scramble in.
As much as I agree with the arguments made here that "neutrality" is preferable to "empathy as defined by ME", I don't think this is a situation that will be resolved on the terrain of "persuasive intellectual rhetoric A goes mano a mano with persuasive intellectual rhetoric B"
It's really a fight over resources and indicates something pretty awful about resource allocation at present. If the traditional value librarians had something other than rhetoric to offer new young librarians -- if there were many real, paying avenues into the profession -- I don't think this fight would be happening.
In sum: I'm politically and intellectually sympathetic to traditional librarianship. But I see why the younger generation is mad and frustrated about their prospects, and if we don't figure out how to help them, these resource-allocation challenges framed as values-challenges are going to continue.
I'm in accord with your sentiments completely. A couple of quick comments. It's always about resources, particularly here in Alberta post-secondaries right now, as you know. Nor is the job market in Canada particularly strong (I cannot speak for the US). This isn't really about intellectual rhetorical challenges though; underlying it is how libraries put boundaries on their professional responsibilities, and how they communicate those responsibilities to 'stakeholders'. The argument we're making in the letter is for 'professional neutrality' (the old civil service ethos, if you like) and focusing resources on services and collections for their communities, not a mission creep to save all humanity. Moreover, it is strongly aimed at using good processes - including not judging users or dismissing their needs - to ensure engagement and inclusion in the library mission for library staff and for its communities of users. I strongly agree with you that inclusion and openness are core to helping all who are disengaged find a more welcoming home in libraries. And we need a younger, more diverse staff (see above about job opportunities). Finally, a more radical wording that defines the proposition is always a harder sell for funding, which does affect resources. In short: I think the changing of ALA wording will damage these goals by removing ethical and professional boundaries, and affect public support.
I am in agreement with the authors, especially with their criticism of the the notion that there is a correct set of values and it is those of the political left. This is likely to have unfortunate consequences for the decisions funding agencies make about libraries and librarians. Our professional development should include workshops on empathy, the persistence of racism and ethnic prejudice, and how to deal with all patrons respectfully, among a variety of other topics.
Neutrality and fascism aren’t compatible.
I'd like you to discuss more regarding your views on the "the kind of polarization and partisan wrangling now eroding the public's confidence in teachers and public schools." You're implying in your text that such "erosion" is somehow warranted and prop up an undefended position that "much of the public" actually believes that public educators are somehow radical leftists.
Further, you argue that "it is easy to imagine conservative legislators questioning why they deserve taxpayer funding, or such autonomy, if they’re not going to represent the interests of all citizens." Who are these conservative legislators and present their bona fides to support your position. The only conservative legislators who you would ask us not to anger seem to argue against any form of inclusion or worthwhile educational enterprise seeking to help students and others understand what it means to live in a diverse, liberal democracy.
I want to give your arguments a chance, but your claims in the paragraph from which I've quoted dissolve your reputational foundation and limit my belief that you are attempting to authentically participate in this debate.
This is an excellent, well-reasoned letter! I hope this discussion continues throughout the profession. From conversations I've had with fellow public librarians, I believe there are many of us who still believe that neutrality in library services is a goal towards which we should be striving. Thank you for sharing this!
This is an excellent letter (which I stumbled upon only recently). I tried to find out what actually happened with the Intellectual Freedom and Social Justice WG proposal, but the trail seems to have gone cold. Was the effort simply dropped?
"Despite a general agreement on the importance of empathy, there is little scientific consensus as to exactly what empathy is."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09637214221131275
This letter contains such a rich discussion of the democratic sensibilities American libraries are built on! I've often marveled at how open-minded and welcoming librarians are in responding to my questions and requests. I'm sure there are clunkers out there, but the standard of neutrality has given me the confidence to ask about nearly anything over the years. This letter points out that the insidious drive to change one of the true strengths of our culture is also at work in some of the "quiet" corners of society. Yikes.
I view these issues through a developmental lens. We usually start out looking for information confirming out current views. Traditionalists might come to the library looking for justification for their views and stumble on a book about the awakening of a former white nationalist. A Modernist might discover a writer who captures a Traditional religious view that is consistent with their thinking. A Postmodernist could find a book about the Civil Rights movement reminding them of one of the great achievements of the Modern movement. Finally, the Post Progressive shakes off these natural, parochial worldviews and takes an overall developmental approach so we can meet the individual where they are now and trust that friendly professional service will help them learn and grow. If libraries are forced to force a viewpoint, we demonstrate that we don't trust people to grow.