Why the conversation about "banned" books shouldn't be limited to titles challenged by the public, but also include collection decisions by librarians. An op-ed from FAIR in Libraries.
Another relevant link from a comment on "Irreversible Damage". https://bpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/comment/2526594640 . Here's some relevant quotations: "I put a hold on this book last summer - it's now nearly May the following year. I had read the news about HRL keeping the book in circulation and I thought I should read it because of the controversy surrounding it." This is a kind of soft censorship, obviously. There are some copies of the book available in the public libraries, but not enough to meet the demand. And this in 2024! And again: "Did anyone else receive a pamphlet from the library in their copy? How intrusive! I received resources on what to know, do and say in the "New Gender Culture" with about a dozen books and resources listed from the HRL. I wonder if the library staff put pamphlets in other books?" So, if you check out this book, you get some "extras" along with the book, presumably to counter the "misinformation" contained in the book. Is that standard library policy, the work of individual library workers, or the work of the person who checked the book out last? It's hard to tell, but something very similar happened to me, although with respect to a completely different book, when I requested a book from a nearby library.
I did a search for "Grave Error" in a few Canadian public library catalogues last week and found 52 holds for 14 copies in Toronto and 50 holds for 4 copies in Ottawa.
Not so very long after "Irreversible Damage" first came out it was purchased by the Boston Public Library system, which is large. Actual employees of the library, who get a special identifying marker on their comments, left comments expressing their horror that the book had been purchased, etc., etc. I didn't take screenshots at the time, and _I think_ those particular comments have since been removed, but I found one existing comment, now marked as "Offensive" which kind of substantiates my claim: https://bpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/comment/1903105769 . I'll quote the relevant part: "Edited to add: I find it alarming that library staff have joined the smear campaign as well - calling it 'poorly researched' and 'phobic' which simply isn't true. It IS a well researched and balanced book, but since they can't dispute any of her points, they joined the mob. Disgraceful. While I left librarianship out of necessity, I'm glad I'm no longer a part of it, if this is what it has become."
I can report that there are 250 copies of "I am Jazz" and 1 copy of "My Body is Me" in the libraries of Massachusetts which participate in the Massachusetts Commonwealth Catalog. Many to most libraries in Massachusetts participate in the Commonwealth Catalog, so that is probably a fair representation of the total holdings of Massachusetts libraries. There are 290 copies of "It Feels Good to be Yourself" as well as 12 audiobook of same.
I do not have the time to search the catalogue of every library system in the country, but I will cite my work by providing the catalogue entries for each of the three books Dudley used as examples in his piece after a quick search of some of our larger systems.
Irreversible Damage. Dudley claims it is held by four public library systems:
1. Toronto Public Library
2. Ottawa Public Library
3. Bibliothèques de Montréal
4. Bibliothèque de Québec
5. Halifax Public Library
6. Hamilton Public Library
7. Edmonton Public Library
8. Calgary Public Library
9. Vancouver Public Library
10. Greater Victoria Public Library
11. Mississauga Public Library
12. Burnaby Public Library
Even smaller systems that I searched hold this title, for instance Kingston-Frontenac, Windsor, and Okanagan Regional Library.
Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth About Residential Schools). Dudley claims it is held by three public library systems:
1. Toronto Public Library
2. Ottawa Public Library
3. Bibliothèques de Montréal
4. Halifax Public Library
5. Edmonton Public Library
6. Regina Public Library
7. Calgary Public Library
8. Vancouver Public Library
9. Saskatoon Public Library
10. Mississauga Public Library
11. Burnaby Public Library
The 1867 Project: Why Canada Should be Cherished, not Cancelled. Dudley claims it is held by five public library systems:
1. Toronto Public Library
2. Ottawa Public Library
3. Halifax Public Library
4. Winnipeg Public Library
5. Edmonton Public Library
6. Calgary Public Library
7. Regina Public Library
8. Vancouver Public Library
9. Greater Victoria Public Library
10. Saskatoon Public Library
11. Burnaby Public Library
12. Mississauga Public Library
Lastly, to counter the unsupported claim that books such as Irreversible Damage are rarely purchased by libraries, I will cite WorldCat stats. Granted, WorldCat is not a good measure of library holdings in Canada, as very few Canadian public library catalogues are accessed by WorldCat, but it does provide a decent snapshot of library holdings in the U.S., where the collections strategies and views on intellectual freedom in libraries often align with that of Canadian libraries. Naomi Klein’s 2023 NYT Bestseller and Women’s Prize for Nonfiction winner Doppelgänger, according to WorldCat, appears in the collections 874 public libraries. In comparison, Irreversible Damage, which never appeared on the NYT bestseller list and has won no consequential awards, appears in 551 public libraries. If a work with significantly less demand and recognition appears in nearly two thirds of total libraries which hold the much more consequential and more recent Doppelgänger, it is difficult to argue with any modicum of intellectual honesty that a work such as the former is “rarely purchased.”
Thanks for the note. The article is now under revision to address these corrections and a note has been added to the top of the post for the sake of transparency.
"FAIR believes that we must teach children the objective truth on matters of scientific fact. We advocate for age-appropriate instruction around sex, with biology and science as foundational before considering more controversial ideas around gender and gender identity.
Many schools, however, are teaching children that gender and biological sex are spectrums—with many different points on them and labels within them, and with “gender” unconnected to “biological sex.” This approach aims to account for a wide range of identities. The idea of a “spectrum” sounds flexible, but the way it is being taught in some schools requires children to reject biology and to accept and reinforce gender norms and stereotypes.
Too often when children exhibit behaviors or preferences that don’t match up with the stereotypes of their biological sex, they are told it’s a sign that they’re transgender. This risks confusing children, whose identity formation and self-understanding are still developing. This confusion can lead some to consider serious and irreversible medical interventions."
As a person who reads a lot in the history of science, I'ld say that the abuse of the word "spectrum" is another of the attacks on scientific precision which I deplore. It was Isaac Newton who picked the word to explain his discoveries in optics in his famous early work on what he called "opticks". Since his discoveries were novel he just grabbed a word from the Latin he knew that worked best for him. That word was "spectrum" meaning, roughly "ghost". Some still use the English word "spectre" to mean something of the same meaning, pretty similar to "wraith". This makes sense. Newton had run some light through a prism, and spread it out into its component colours. It was now visible, like a ghost, but also immaterial, like a ghost. Excellent metaphor, Sir Isaac! But Newton did not have the last word on his "spectrum". There have been many discoveries since then and the understanding of what Newton saw and described so magnificently has deepened into a very thorough understanding of what we call the "electromagnetic spectrum", much of which is actually invisible to the human eye, so not like a ghost as Newton thought of it at all. So, in the context of the practice of science, this word has mutated to identify an arrangement that can be described with mathematical precision, where any element has an assigned place with respect to all the other elements, and where a lot of additional things can be immediately inferred about that thing from its place in the spectrum. Moreover, although his spectrum appeared to Newton to be continuous, modern physics has shown that it's not, because of those pesky quanta. Motivated persons seem to want to grab at the word "spectrum", because it gives them a science-y kind of feeling, but they strip all the accumulated scientific meaning from it when they do this, because they do not understand it. My own feeling is that the realm of biology and the accumulated meaning of the word "spectrum" in the science where it has actually been effectively used for centuries, physics, will never be a good match, because biology just does not work that way.
I would like to nominate the book "Gay Shame: The Rise of Gender Identity Ideology and the New Homophobia" by Gareth Roberts as the book you ask your library to purchase. It was a featured selection of the "Make Every Week Freedom to Read Week" project of Library Watchers of Greater Lowell last November: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0cAh9YqtZSkjybs3M33qXfUxhhMFMPFmAzMiZHozcpyoX7Gn5U4XUHusKMJvqLZmkl&id=61556735437296 . Since then, it has been the subject of a purchase request thrice at multiple libraries in the local area, and it has not been purchased yet: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02gNzgrDyLcStYm6yZv6seF931bTBWThEAKpbKEgnWxSNi2m7KuDV5RbdvCeBKQPQPl&id=61556735437296 . It feels to me like it must be on the "Librarians' Secret List of Books We Dare not Purchase". I'll bet there isn't a copy in a library in the entire country of Canada possibly in all of North America. Before this effort, the author did a bunch of Dr. Who novelizations, and some of those are available in the Niagara Cooperative system (I just checked). I also checked the British Library (which is in a bad way since it was hacked). They have a number of Gareth Roberts books, no "Gay Shame".
Happily Edmonton Public Library is one of the systems holding the book! Currently available, too. When it first came out the waiting list was long— which I have noticed as a pattern for many out of political favour books. Library has one copy and many postulants.
There are zero copies of "Grave Error" or "The 1867 Project" in the Massachusetts Commonwealth catalog.
Another relevant link from a comment on "Irreversible Damage". https://bpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/comment/2526594640 . Here's some relevant quotations: "I put a hold on this book last summer - it's now nearly May the following year. I had read the news about HRL keeping the book in circulation and I thought I should read it because of the controversy surrounding it." This is a kind of soft censorship, obviously. There are some copies of the book available in the public libraries, but not enough to meet the demand. And this in 2024! And again: "Did anyone else receive a pamphlet from the library in their copy? How intrusive! I received resources on what to know, do and say in the "New Gender Culture" with about a dozen books and resources listed from the HRL. I wonder if the library staff put pamphlets in other books?" So, if you check out this book, you get some "extras" along with the book, presumably to counter the "misinformation" contained in the book. Is that standard library policy, the work of individual library workers, or the work of the person who checked the book out last? It's hard to tell, but something very similar happened to me, although with respect to a completely different book, when I requested a book from a nearby library.
The "soft censorship" angle viz. not purchasing enough copies to meet demand is an interesting angle that should also be pursued.
I did a search for "Grave Error" in a few Canadian public library catalogues last week and found 52 holds for 14 copies in Toronto and 50 holds for 4 copies in Ottawa.
Not so very long after "Irreversible Damage" first came out it was purchased by the Boston Public Library system, which is large. Actual employees of the library, who get a special identifying marker on their comments, left comments expressing their horror that the book had been purchased, etc., etc. I didn't take screenshots at the time, and _I think_ those particular comments have since been removed, but I found one existing comment, now marked as "Offensive" which kind of substantiates my claim: https://bpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/comment/1903105769 . I'll quote the relevant part: "Edited to add: I find it alarming that library staff have joined the smear campaign as well - calling it 'poorly researched' and 'phobic' which simply isn't true. It IS a well researched and balanced book, but since they can't dispute any of her points, they joined the mob. Disgraceful. While I left librarianship out of necessity, I'm glad I'm no longer a part of it, if this is what it has become."
I can report that there are 250 copies of "I am Jazz" and 1 copy of "My Body is Me" in the libraries of Massachusetts which participate in the Massachusetts Commonwealth Catalog. Many to most libraries in Massachusetts participate in the Commonwealth Catalog, so that is probably a fair representation of the total holdings of Massachusetts libraries. There are 290 copies of "It Feels Good to be Yourself" as well as 12 audiobook of same.
I do not have the time to search the catalogue of every library system in the country, but I will cite my work by providing the catalogue entries for each of the three books Dudley used as examples in his piece after a quick search of some of our larger systems.
Irreversible Damage. Dudley claims it is held by four public library systems:
1. Toronto Public Library
2. Ottawa Public Library
3. Bibliothèques de Montréal
4. Bibliothèque de Québec
5. Halifax Public Library
6. Hamilton Public Library
7. Edmonton Public Library
8. Calgary Public Library
9. Vancouver Public Library
10. Greater Victoria Public Library
11. Mississauga Public Library
12. Burnaby Public Library
Even smaller systems that I searched hold this title, for instance Kingston-Frontenac, Windsor, and Okanagan Regional Library.
Grave Error: How the Media Misled Us (and the Truth About Residential Schools). Dudley claims it is held by three public library systems:
1. Toronto Public Library
2. Ottawa Public Library
3. Bibliothèques de Montréal
4. Halifax Public Library
5. Edmonton Public Library
6. Regina Public Library
7. Calgary Public Library
8. Vancouver Public Library
9. Saskatoon Public Library
10. Mississauga Public Library
11. Burnaby Public Library
The 1867 Project: Why Canada Should be Cherished, not Cancelled. Dudley claims it is held by five public library systems:
1. Toronto Public Library
2. Ottawa Public Library
3. Halifax Public Library
4. Winnipeg Public Library
5. Edmonton Public Library
6. Calgary Public Library
7. Regina Public Library
8. Vancouver Public Library
9. Greater Victoria Public Library
10. Saskatoon Public Library
11. Burnaby Public Library
12. Mississauga Public Library
Lastly, to counter the unsupported claim that books such as Irreversible Damage are rarely purchased by libraries, I will cite WorldCat stats. Granted, WorldCat is not a good measure of library holdings in Canada, as very few Canadian public library catalogues are accessed by WorldCat, but it does provide a decent snapshot of library holdings in the U.S., where the collections strategies and views on intellectual freedom in libraries often align with that of Canadian libraries. Naomi Klein’s 2023 NYT Bestseller and Women’s Prize for Nonfiction winner Doppelgänger, according to WorldCat, appears in the collections 874 public libraries. In comparison, Irreversible Damage, which never appeared on the NYT bestseller list and has won no consequential awards, appears in 551 public libraries. If a work with significantly less demand and recognition appears in nearly two thirds of total libraries which hold the much more consequential and more recent Doppelgänger, it is difficult to argue with any modicum of intellectual honesty that a work such as the former is “rarely purchased.”
Thanks for the note. The article is now under revision to address these corrections and a note has been added to the top of the post for the sake of transparency.
https://www.fairforall.org/understanding-the-issues/#gender
"FAIR believes that we must teach children the objective truth on matters of scientific fact. We advocate for age-appropriate instruction around sex, with biology and science as foundational before considering more controversial ideas around gender and gender identity.
Many schools, however, are teaching children that gender and biological sex are spectrums—with many different points on them and labels within them, and with “gender” unconnected to “biological sex.” This approach aims to account for a wide range of identities. The idea of a “spectrum” sounds flexible, but the way it is being taught in some schools requires children to reject biology and to accept and reinforce gender norms and stereotypes.
Too often when children exhibit behaviors or preferences that don’t match up with the stereotypes of their biological sex, they are told it’s a sign that they’re transgender. This risks confusing children, whose identity formation and self-understanding are still developing. This confusion can lead some to consider serious and irreversible medical interventions."
As a person who reads a lot in the history of science, I'ld say that the abuse of the word "spectrum" is another of the attacks on scientific precision which I deplore. It was Isaac Newton who picked the word to explain his discoveries in optics in his famous early work on what he called "opticks". Since his discoveries were novel he just grabbed a word from the Latin he knew that worked best for him. That word was "spectrum" meaning, roughly "ghost". Some still use the English word "spectre" to mean something of the same meaning, pretty similar to "wraith". This makes sense. Newton had run some light through a prism, and spread it out into its component colours. It was now visible, like a ghost, but also immaterial, like a ghost. Excellent metaphor, Sir Isaac! But Newton did not have the last word on his "spectrum". There have been many discoveries since then and the understanding of what Newton saw and described so magnificently has deepened into a very thorough understanding of what we call the "electromagnetic spectrum", much of which is actually invisible to the human eye, so not like a ghost as Newton thought of it at all. So, in the context of the practice of science, this word has mutated to identify an arrangement that can be described with mathematical precision, where any element has an assigned place with respect to all the other elements, and where a lot of additional things can be immediately inferred about that thing from its place in the spectrum. Moreover, although his spectrum appeared to Newton to be continuous, modern physics has shown that it's not, because of those pesky quanta. Motivated persons seem to want to grab at the word "spectrum", because it gives them a science-y kind of feeling, but they strip all the accumulated scientific meaning from it when they do this, because they do not understand it. My own feeling is that the realm of biology and the accumulated meaning of the word "spectrum" in the science where it has actually been effectively used for centuries, physics, will never be a good match, because biology just does not work that way.
Yes, that's FAIR's position. As one of the authors of the op-ed, I can confirm that it's mine as well.
I would like to nominate the book "Gay Shame: The Rise of Gender Identity Ideology and the New Homophobia" by Gareth Roberts as the book you ask your library to purchase. It was a featured selection of the "Make Every Week Freedom to Read Week" project of Library Watchers of Greater Lowell last November: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0cAh9YqtZSkjybs3M33qXfUxhhMFMPFmAzMiZHozcpyoX7Gn5U4XUHusKMJvqLZmkl&id=61556735437296 . Since then, it has been the subject of a purchase request thrice at multiple libraries in the local area, and it has not been purchased yet: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02gNzgrDyLcStYm6yZv6seF931bTBWThEAKpbKEgnWxSNi2m7KuDV5RbdvCeBKQPQPl&id=61556735437296 . It feels to me like it must be on the "Librarians' Secret List of Books We Dare not Purchase". I'll bet there isn't a copy in a library in the entire country of Canada possibly in all of North America. Before this effort, the author did a bunch of Dr. Who novelizations, and some of those are available in the Niagara Cooperative system (I just checked). I also checked the British Library (which is in a bad way since it was hacked). They have a number of Gareth Roberts books, no "Gay Shame".
Great suggestion! I've listened to several interviews with Roberts and want to read his book.
Happily Edmonton Public Library is one of the systems holding the book! Currently available, too. When it first came out the waiting list was long— which I have noticed as a pattern for many out of political favour books. Library has one copy and many postulants.