Running Political Interference

The case against Drag Queen Story Time in libraries

Photo: Brainy J, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

By an Anonymous Public Librarian

Of all of the library intellectual freedom issues that have arisen in recent years, none is more contentious than the public library sponsored Drag Queen Story Time (DQST) events, thorny issues at the intersection of professional judgement, community engagement, cultural controversies, and inclusion efforts. When does a library’s decision of resources to offer or not to offer go from being one choice among many to serve diverse community needs, to a deliberately and unavoidably politicized action? When does inclusion of a marginalized population swerve into exclusion of those holding opposing viewpoints? How far are librarians and concerned citizens on either side of the issue willing to go to defend their preferences?  

First things first: as library professionals, we need to start from the position that it is imperative that libraries have the freedom to include controversial and unpopular viewpoints in their collections, programs and other offerings. Librarians choose to offer these in an effort to reflect the broadest possible breadth of human knowledge, and it is unacceptable for these choices to be narrowed by the restrictive demands of any citizen or group of citizens. Simply put, every library user has the right to choose what they wish to read or explore, and no other user can circumscribe that right. Librarians need to make decisions about collections and services that meet their communities’ needs without influence from the political preferences of citizens, lobbyists, or officials. Moreover, they need to make these decisions with as little influence as possible from their own political preferences. In short, their aim should be viewpoint neutrality.

If libraries have the legal and moral right to choose the programs and services that reflect their communities’ needs, free from political interference, then offering DQST despite opposition from some parts of the community can be seen as a principled and balanced professional decision. DQST is firmly within the North American intellectual freedom bounds that excludes only material deemed illegal (for example, hate speech or sedition in Canada) or unprotected (for example, direct threats under the US First Amendment).  DQST is also typically well-attended, attesting to fulfilling demand, and user reactions are often highly enthusiastic, attesting to the quality of the program. Conversely, however, this respect for balanced choice needs to extend to libraries that decide not to offer the program despite pressure from interest groups. The tendency is to assume that those libraries have succumbed to the pressures of anti-inclusion forces. But what if there is a strong argument for this decision, one rooted in the need to promote viewpoint neutrality and to project an image free from ideological influence?

The case against DQST in libraries begins with the deeply controversial nature of the ideas that gave rise to the program. Despite the apparent agreement on matters of gender identity and expression among authorities across North America, there is no citizen consensus that gender is a self-declared truth that trumps biological sex, or that gender nonconforming individuals need to be supported with social and physical transitions at all costs. While same-sex marriage, for example, is now supported by a substantial majority in both the US and Canada, there is considerable opposition to transgender inclusion in female sport, to schools concealing social transition from parents, and to the pervasive use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat gender dysphoria in youth.  

None of this, of course, means that libraries should not actively include “gender theory” in their collections and services.  At the very least, it is a theory that many people wish to explore, and libraries have a responsibility to fulfill demands for information. Further, libraries have a responsibility to facilitate access to knowledge that is controversial and dissenting, even knowledge that some feel is inconsistent with evidentiary science (hello, alien abductions and astrology!). Libraries should not place themselves in a position to decide what is and is not the truth; instead, their role in the truth ecosystem is to provide users with quality tools to discover truth and decide for themselves. 

But DQST generally isn’t framed as a single truth-discovering point of access among many. It would be one thing to present DQST as part of a series of programs and displays that explore the current controversy, but this is not what is happening. In fact, libraries are often afraid to provide access to materials that raise any doubts related to gender theory.  Instead, DQST is often part of a politically-influenced suite of collection and service decisions that intentionally perceive of gender theory as settled knowledge, couched in legal and human-rights authority by true-believer librarians and by administrators (quite astutely) eager to please stakeholders and funders. As a result, libraries are likely to be seen in some corners as joining other institutions, from governments to non-profits to K-12 schools, in overwhelming their communities with one particular version of the truth, favouring a novel and deeply contested ideology.  

All of this contributes to the sense among some that in trying so hard to be inclusive of a particular misunderstood viewpoint, the library is actively excluding those that disagree. This is due in part to the demonization on the part of libraries of those who raise concerns about the events. While often rightly pointing out that anti-DQST protesters have a right to their viewpoint but not a right to limit others’ access, libraries often paint them as a threat to their inclusion efforts, while the often enthusiastic counter-protests are portrayed as playing a role in fighting against bigotry. Forces portraying the protesters as motivated by anti-LGBTQ hatred also range from the media to the police. In a recent report, the LGBTQ+ rights group EGALE Canada takes an inordinate number of protests and social media comments expressing concern about DQST and characterizes them all as hate incidents, lumping them all in with the few truly violent threats. Ironically, they even include a post protesting Calgary’s new bylaw that prohibits “specified protests” on what appears to be one side of the political spectrum.  The message seems to be that the library and other institutions are taking a side, and you’re either with us or you’re against us. 

The final issue to grapple with is that of the most vehement objections to DQST, which is that it involves prepubescent children.  Calling the drag queens and librarians involved “groomers” is inflammatory and excessive; there is no evidence that purveyors of the program are doing so to entice young people into sexual acts. There is a kernel of truth, though, to this accusation. They are trying to influence ideology, targeting (intentionally or not) an audience too young to appreciate anything but stark right and wrong. Although DQST facilitators may avoid direct mention of gender theory in their program—focussing instead on gender-nonconforming costume, play, and story—the program is part of a campaign, with the support of partisan parents and caregivers, to influence the thinking of youngsters in order to “disrupt” the gender binary. 

In the end, offering DQST is a lose-lose for libraries attempting to steer a politically neutral course: those opposed accuse you of “grooming”; those in favour co-opt you in their fight against perceived transphobia. It is almost impossible in the current context to offer DQST without it being seen from all sides as a political action. If gender theory is just a theory, what is needed is an honest exploration of its merits, but DQST instead offers an uncritical celebration that by design paints the unenthused as bigots. In essence, it is less an innovative and enlightening program, and more a divisive and dishonest propaganda tool, a program designed by special interest groups, presented by true believers, sold to “woke” adults, and aimed at children too young to think critically. In the name of intellectual freedom, libraries need to do what is right without regard for ideology. If it compromises their political neutrality to this degree, libraries are best to avoid DQST altogether.

---

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, 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!