The Ontario Library Association Defames Us All
By an Anonymous Public Librarian
On August 21, 2024, the Ontario Library Association released a statement called OLA’s Commitment Towards Inclusive Librarianship. In doing so, the OLA, the largest library association in Canada, has in effect defamed its members, the library profession, and indeed the country as a whole.
It should come as no surprise that the Canadian library profession continues to move towards greater ideological capture by “critical theory”. Often colloquially equated to so-called “wokeism”, this is the group of theories that reject the foundations of classical liberalism—namely, objective truth, neutral institutions, individual rights, and incremental progress—and replace them with standpoint epistemology, activist subversion, collective identity, and revolutionary deconstruction. Inspired by postmodernism, this tendency posits that all truth is constructed by those in power, and only those who are oppressed are untainted by a dynamic that perpetuates the status quo.
In Canada, this ideological capture has led to instances of controversial or unproven ideas becoming the only acceptable belief, resulting in real harm to the fabric of the country. On September 30, the nation celebrates the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (NDTR), whose loudest proponents continue to perpetuate the unproven—and likely false—allegations that Indian Residential Schools were responsible for the deliberate killing and secret burial of thousands of Indigenous children in the 20th century. (Interestingly, a casual Internet search for “lies and recrimination day” turns up multiple links to the official view of NDTR. Does this suggest that many others have made the same connection?) One of the results of the dominance of these allegations has been the burning of many Christian churches in revenge, arsons that have gone largely uninvestigated and unpunished.
Further, any suggestion that there are alternative views to explore has been met with an almost complete denial by authorities, and not just on the political Left. One need look no further than the city of Quesnel, BC, where the municipal council censured its mayor because his wife (!) read and shared with her friends a book with a skeptical view of the matter.
The OLA statement in question follows from the dominance of these theories, and of their concomitant view that all contrary thoughts are evidence of racism, fascism, or “extreme-right” tendencies. If the membership of OLA elects leaders that are of a particular ideological viewpoint who shift the association’s emphasis accordingly, that is a fair process, and those that object can try to rebalance the ship in future elections. The problem, though, is that any pushback on these theories is seen as evidence that they were right in the first place—the objectors must be those invested in the power status quo. A tool of liberal democracy—direct elections in private associations—becomes corrupted by an illiberal force that sees only one worldview as possible.
Let’s look at the OLA statement to see just where it fails both to uphold the values of liberal democracy and to allow for pluralist dissent and open discussion.
OLA’s Commitment Towards Inclusive Librarianship
This living document serves as the Ontario Library Association (OLA)’s commitment to meaningfully address oppression in all its forms within the Association. In this commitment, we affirm our position of inclusive librarianship. The OLA acknowledges that it has been complicit in perpetuating the oppressive systems that form the foundation of Canada and its institutions. Founded and operating on the traditional territories of the First Nations, Inuit and Métis, the OLA recognizes that oppression at all levels – personal, interpersonal and structural – persists within the Association and the Canadian library sector. Despite this, the OLA is determined that we can build a profession that reflects the principles of libraries as institutions that foster a more equitable society.
This introductory paragraph lays bare the defamation and absence of evidence that the statement is steeped in. If propaganda is defined as the narrowing of truth in order to render only one viewpoint acceptable (I have not been able to find a reference for this), then propaganda may be the appropriate word to describe it. To say that Canada was founded on oppressive systems is a highly controversial view, but to say that the Association—and by extent, its members—is complicit, is tantamount to defamation. While it is technically true that Ontario libraries operate on traditionally Indigenous territories, it does not follow that the profession is oppressive.
The OLA is committed to dismantling harmful practices within our organization and sector that perpetuate racism, white supremacy and colonial attitudes.
Again, no evidence is presented as to the veracity of this extraordinary claim. Saying that OLA and the library sector perpetuate “white supremacy” is an example of one of the worst critical theory fallacies, that any racial disproportionality in representation must be the result of racist attitudes. This entirely occludes discussion of other factors, such as racially skewed career preferences, socioeconomic disparities, and even geographic distribution. According to this theory, libraries must therefore be white supremacist in a way that other professions where nonwhite employees are more prevalent are not, such as finance or medicine.
Moving forward, the OLA commits to:
Integrating Reconciliation, anti-oppression, and Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) into our strategic planning.
Judgment on this one can be reserved until the next OLA strategic plan is developed, but such an “integration” is likely to narrow the space of acceptable member and stakeholder feedback in the process.
Approaching this work with an Indigenous lens and holding space for all our relationships, both with each other and with our natural environment.
“Indigenous lens” in general refers to the fallacy that Indigenous people have a different “way of knowing” that needs to be emphasized over so-called “Western ways of knowing” that include scientific observation, objectivity, individual rights, etc. In library science, it often results in the censoring of views that do not comply with the oppressed status theory of Indigenous people. In addition, the suggestion that collegial relationships and environmentalism are solely Indigenous concepts is entirely fallacious.
Ensuring that this work is informed by the perspectives of marginalized and underrepresented communities.
An example of standpoint epistemology, this results from the assertion that oppressed people have knowledge that those in dominant groups could never understand. Anyone who is perceived as being part of an “oppressor” group is therefore suspect, and their heterodox views on matters like this are taken as evidence of their oppressor status (look no further than the treatment of Jews as oppressors of late). This assertion also obfuscates intra-group outcome disparities as well as viewpoint diversity. Moreover, the marginalized perspectives likely to be given credence are those of middle-class, educated members of otherwise socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.
Developing and proactively implementing a multi-year anti-racism strategy for the OLA, informed by research, assessment, and sector engagement, including a survey on the state of inclusive librarianship in the Ontario library sector.
While any survey is welcome as evidence, the use of the term “anti-racism” is concerning. Anti-racism is not the absence of racism, but the perception that racism is pervasive and must be opposed at every opportunity. The term presupposes a conclusion that may not be supported by the evidence, and again agitates against anyone who might propose an alternative view.
Continue working collaboratively and learning with other organizations prioritizing Reconciliation and EDI.
While it is always advantageous for the library profession to work with other related sectors, this commitment creates a connection to organizations who may not share anything in common with libraries, except for what is becoming a clear ideological bias.
Leveraging our position and power as a prominent library association to drive meaningful change across the sector, both provincially and nationally.
OLA should be a leader, but the rest of the statement would make it appear that the need for “meaningful change” presupposes a state of affairs not supported by evidence.
Even though library professionals interact with individuals from diverse backgrounds and identities daily, our sector does not reflect the communities we serve. With the support of an EDI Consultant, the OLA is now ready to embark on a new direction in our work towards inclusive librarianship, starting with a focus on anti-racism. Anti-racism, defined as proactively combatting racism in all its forms, is only a first step towards addressing the systemic barriers that have led to a lack of diversity in Canadian librarianship. While we stand by our 2020 statement on anti-racism and the progress made, extensive work still needs to be done.
I’ve commented above on the representation fallacy. But this section also proposes that interacting with diverse populations (mostly referring to library users) is not enough; instead, our employee demographics must be proportional to that of our users. It utterly fails to ask the important question, which is: do we serve them well? Surely excellence in service is the goal, not proportional representation. Similarly, I’ve already commented on anti-racism, but would point out that the use of the word “proactively” cements that concept’s reputation as presupposing a state of affairs without evidence; in other words, assuming the worst intentions always. No assertion is more damaging to social trust, not to mention to individual rights to free expression, than the suggestion that everyone is racist or oppressive until proven otherwise.
Building a profession of inclusive librarianship is a significant undertaking, touching on multiple intersectionalities. The OLA acknowledges and honours the role of intersectionality in this work, along with the unique position of Truth and Reconciliation in the context of EDI. This is important to recognize given the colonial history of Canada – a nation built on the ongoing genocide of Indigenous Peoples on their homeland.
Intersectionality is another controversial and anti-individual concept that serves to divide populations along smaller and smaller groupings, leading to a perverse competition to see who is higher or lower on the marginalization scale. As well, the assertion of “ongoing genocide” posits a dubious conclusion that is based on the shaky Residential School theory previously referenced and entirely ignores the surging Indigenous population of Canada.
This work is necessary and urgent. The OLA commits to owning each step of this endeavor and taking accountability for any errors we will make along the way. We will approach this work holistically by soliciting the input and lived experiences of OLA membership, and ensuring diverse voices are represented in shaping the outcomes. We will be guided by OLA’s Council and Committee members as leaders within the Association.
Soliciting input and taking responsibility for the Association’s future is entirely appropriate but requires that the Association be open to alternative views. Instead, the organization seems to be presupposing answers to questions they have not fully explored.
We call upon our members to also commit to enacting structural change. Dismantling systemic oppressive practices is a collective effort. Together we will work towards creating an equitable, inclusive community of library professionals.
This statement attempts to broaden the horizons of the Association mission as theorized, but instead makes it clear that the OLA is no longer committed to being a neutral and respected institution that values excellence, but rather is open only to members of a particular progressive viewpoint. The use of the word “dismantling” is particularly concerning. Have library users, stakeholders, and funders given libraries a mandate for destruction? Liberal democracy is built on incremental change, brought forth by institutions and individuals who can agree on the “thinnest” of theories of what constitutes the good.
In sum, this statement is an example of the anti-empirical, heavily ideological rhetoric that threatens the very foundations of the library profession, which chiefly comprises political neutrality, open inquiry, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, and equal access. It seems to hearken back to the moral panic unleashed in 2020 and 2021 by events in the US and Canada that, while sparking important discussion and debate, also had the effect of narrowing the window of acceptable inquiry and expression. While not as blatantly illiberal as the recent speech by the president of the Society of American Archivists, it is a statement that at best distracts from, and at worst corrupts, the real mission of the association and the profession. As an OLA member, the statement is not in my name.
Editor’s note: This post has been updated with references and corrections at the author’s request. 9/17/2024 11:38am.
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!
Thanks for writing this very useful analysis of another ideological document. Yes, we all have our own belief systems . . . .. including liberals like me. It does look like there's more intolerance and unwillingness to listen or engage with others, though, in a weaponized intolerant document like this one that claims to be about "inclusion" but isn't including other perspectives on especially complex and fraught matters. I also think the language included here is very imitative of other documents from other associations--it's kind of a "recombinant" social justice language. It's constantly reworked and repackaged for the "right" purposes.
I don't like to respond to anonymous posts, as I believe people should own what they are willing to share, but in this case ... the basic weakness of this post is the definition of critical thinking. It is actually the most inclusive of philosophies because as Richard Paul and Linda Elder write: "Critical thinkers ... question information, conclusions and point of view. They strive to be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. They seeks to think beneath the surface, to be logical and fair." (The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools). Note that, unlike many others, they don't claim to be "right". They do, however, elevate the practice of investigation. This ability and willingness to question can lead to new knowledge which can instigate revised world views. It doesn't advocate any particular world view, just the right to investigate.