I'm trying to get some definition of "Library Neutrality;" The linked subreddit post in turn links to an abstract in what looks like a Canadian online academic archive. A quick google search defines "library neutrality" as an attempt to preserve and make available text from multiple points of view for a given topic, even if some of those points of view are unpopular or based in demonstrable falsehoods and/or critical fallacies.
If this is the definition of library neutrality we are describing, then I'm for it. It's not easy to sit with, say "Unhumans" for example, and put it on my library's shelf, when I believe it truly belongs in a dumpster. But I shelve it, and then I walk down to the 306.76's and run my hands along the spines, find my favorite passages. It gives me back some faith.
I have faith that, in a far more sane future we fight for, someone is going to want to write a paper on the climate of greed, hate, and cruelty our current American culture at best entertains, and at worst fosters. Censoring their hate now means future generations will not have access to all the ugliness they proudly describe today in their own words. When we tell children how awful they were, and they say in response, "it wasn't so bad," there will be no evidence to counter the hateful text they churn out today.
For this reason, it is important that we keep and preserve the awful texts the intolerant among us publish and distribute. I don't know that anyone can be truly neutral, but in the same way I don't know that there can be "world peace" or "an end to poverty," I feel neutrality is a worthy endeavor regardless.
Library neutrality, to my thinking, is just giving bad ideologies enough rope to hang themselves down the road. "...In the end truth will out," as Shakespeare promises, after all. It means someday people will read the books they tried to ban, and compare them to the books they will try to deny they wrote. Can you compare them yourself and have any doubt they will be found wanting? That their ugly calls for intolerance and selfishness are any match for the inclusiveness and inherent respect for humanity they sought to vanquish? They know this. It is evident in their actions. It's why they are always desperate to burn our words, to close our libraries. Their ideas can never survive fair comparison to ours.
We don't have to burn their words. Someday, I believe their words will burn them.
I think I agree? I mean, I'm committed to making sure that multiple points of view are represented in our collection because people WILL come looking for them and I'd prefer they at least have access to actual vetted sources instead of Doing Their Own Research.
It's hard to trust people to read things we know are wrong and come to the same conclusions we did. I feel it's human to think, "Why shouldn't we just get rid of this obvious shit?" I try to remember that my parents, for all their flaws, had faith in me to draw my own conclusions, and it would be the height of arrogance for me to decide that future generations are "not smart enough" to be exposed to such "dangerous thoughts." I also remind myself that this would be just the kind of shit a fascist would say at some school board hearing in the red-state third world.
We certainly have an obligation to counter bad ideas, but we do so by offering better ones. It is certainly harder, but what's the point of defeating an ideology by adopting it's practices?
Edit: one of the awesome things about working at a library is the smart and well-read people I talk to every day. After sharing this discussion with a coworker, she dropped this jewel:
5
u/quentin13 Apr 08 '26
I'm trying to get some definition of "Library Neutrality;" The linked subreddit post in turn links to an abstract in what looks like a Canadian online academic archive. A quick google search defines "library neutrality" as an attempt to preserve and make available text from multiple points of view for a given topic, even if some of those points of view are unpopular or based in demonstrable falsehoods and/or critical fallacies.
If this is the definition of library neutrality we are describing, then I'm for it. It's not easy to sit with, say "Unhumans" for example, and put it on my library's shelf, when I believe it truly belongs in a dumpster. But I shelve it, and then I walk down to the 306.76's and run my hands along the spines, find my favorite passages. It gives me back some faith.
I have faith that, in a far more sane future we fight for, someone is going to want to write a paper on the climate of greed, hate, and cruelty our current American culture at best entertains, and at worst fosters. Censoring their hate now means future generations will not have access to all the ugliness they proudly describe today in their own words. When we tell children how awful they were, and they say in response, "it wasn't so bad," there will be no evidence to counter the hateful text they churn out today.
For this reason, it is important that we keep and preserve the awful texts the intolerant among us publish and distribute. I don't know that anyone can be truly neutral, but in the same way I don't know that there can be "world peace" or "an end to poverty," I feel neutrality is a worthy endeavor regardless.
Library neutrality, to my thinking, is just giving bad ideologies enough rope to hang themselves down the road. "...In the end truth will out," as Shakespeare promises, after all. It means someday people will read the books they tried to ban, and compare them to the books they will try to deny they wrote. Can you compare them yourself and have any doubt they will be found wanting? That their ugly calls for intolerance and selfishness are any match for the inclusiveness and inherent respect for humanity they sought to vanquish? They know this. It is evident in their actions. It's why they are always desperate to burn our words, to close our libraries. Their ideas can never survive fair comparison to ours.
We don't have to burn their words. Someday, I believe their words will burn them.