Gavin Downing
Librarian
Kentridge High School
ALA Law Librarian Trainer, ALA Councilor for Washington State
Chair Emeritus, WLA Intellectual Freedom Section
Robin Bradford
Collection Management Librarian
Pierce County Library System
Partner, Actively Anti-Racist Service to Leisure Readers
Alex Byrne
Youth Services Librarian
Pierce County Library System
Mastodon: @TheyofHIShirts @ glammr.us
for
Washington Library Association Conference
10 April 2025
#wla2025
[Alex:] A note before we get started: this program was recorded on the 14th of March, 2025. If there is some content in this presentation that you believe we should have covered, or some world event that has happened in the interim between our recording and your viewing, please remember: it hasn't happened for us yet, and therefore, we don't know that we needed to talk about it.
[Second Note: This transcript has been lightly edited for style and to remove the verbal flubs that inevitably happen when you are talking live with other people, so that it reads smoother in text, and has hyperlinks inserted where relevant for context, citation, or for further reading.]
I have two presenters here with me who will be doing the bulk of the talking while I just sit back and lob questions at them. First, Gavin Downing is the librarian at Kentridge High School. He was recognized with WLA's Candace Morgan Intellectual Freedom Award in 2022 and the Washington Education Association's Student Involvement Award in 2023. He is an ALA Law for Librarians trainer, and the current ALA Councilor for Washington State. Gavin was also the most recent chair of the Intellectual Freedom Section of WLA. Hello, Gavin.
[Gavin:] Hello!
[Alex:] Also with us is Robin Bradford. Robin Bradford is a Collection Management Librarian for the Pierce County Library System, and, with Becky Spratford, helps librarians improve their Reader's Advisory skills through Actively Anti-Racist Service to Leisure Readers programming. Hello, Robin!
[Robin:] Hi there!
[Alex:] All right, let's get started with our backgrounds and questions for "Social Responsibilities and Intellectual Freedom."
Collections
Our first topic on this matter is collections.
Seeming Contradictions Between ALA Pronouncements
A little background for our viewers. The Library Bill of Rights has several secions in it that are about the inclusion or exclusion of materials based on certain criteria, whether the "origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation," and that we should not remove materials from the library based on "partisan or doctrinal disapproval." [Library Bill of Rights, I and II]
Recently, as in, this decade, there was also an additional element added to the the ALA's Code of Ethics that says librarians "work to recognize and dismantle systemic and individual biases; to confront inequity and oppression; to enchance diversity and inclusion;"--and boy, is that a topic in these days--"and to advance racial and social justice in our libraries, communities, profession, and associations." [ALA Code of Ethics IX]
So my question for both of you is:
- To achieve the aims of the newest Principle of the Code of Ethics, there may be situations where librarians should, or feel they should, exclude, remove, or not buy materials for reasons that might conflict with the pronunciations in the Library Bill of Rights or the earlier principle of the Code of Ethics. How do librarians navigate this clash of pronouncements, and, if one of these opposing pronouncements has to give way, which one should be subordinated to the other?
[Gavin:] You want to start, Robin?
[Robin:] Sure. So, I don't necessarily find them mutually exclusive. We're not good at nuance, and I don't know if this is a recent thing, or if it's always been this way. I've done collection development since 2001, and I feel like in the past we were much better at nuance, and so, we didn't necessarily not buy things for our own personal reasons, but our own personal reasons sometimes agreed with the idea that we shouldn't buy them.
For example: I remember early in the 2000s, there was a book called Natural Cures, and it had a subtitle after that, and it was by Kevin Trudeau, who ended up going to prison. [The book's title is Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About.] I was at a different library system, we bought the book. The subject specialist for that area was livid with us because we bought it, and we did kind of think there were so many requests, and then subsequently holds, on the book, and we're talking, like, 600, we felt like we had to buy this thing, even though it was giving out all kinds of mis- and disinformation on health matters.
Where you put that book was a different story. You didn't have to put it in the medical section, you could put it somewhere else. But, eventually, well, eventually, he went to prison, and eventually, we got rid of the book just because it was not what we wanted to have in our collection. Did we disagree with it? Yes. But it was also wrong. So I don't see how that is necessarily getting rid of something for your own personal preference.
Sometimes it is that way, and that is what we really need to work hard to avoid. If I were to say, "I'm going to get rid of this, just because I don't like it," or "I'm not going to buy this, just because I don't like it," that, to me, is then not in accordance with the Library Bill of Rights. But if I happen to not like this thing, that also is patently untrue and shouldn't be in our library, those two things, to me, are compatible. If I were to use a law analogy, and I probably shouldn't, but if I were, it would be something like I remember from my employment law class: I can fire you for any reason, but I can't fire you for a prohibited reason. And that is kind of how I think of these things coexisting.
[Gavin:] I think a big part of it really also comes down to your collection development policy and the role that your particular library plays.For example, I'm a high school librarian, and my role in what the sorts of books I'm selecting are going to be different than the needs for a public library, because one of the things I am intending to do is helping provide--making sure information is accurate for my students. The thing to keep in mind is that, you know, if information is not necessarily accurate, you know, at a high school, I might not want to include it, but if there's a demand for it at the public library, that is a different situation that your collection development policy can help guide yourself forward.
The other thing to keep in mind is: sometimes having that incorrect information is still important to have, so that someone who is studying that will want to know what is out there. For example: when I was in high school, I did a report on, specifically, what the Romani people faced during the Holocaust. As a part of my research, I read "Mein Kampf". This was not a book that should really be in a high school library, but I was able to go to the public library and get a copy and read it. Not because anyone thought it was a good book, but it has that historical importance, and it's very important for people to know what's in it so we know how to combat the misinformation that's in it.
A part of that really does get into the different roles of your library versus my library versus other libraries, and how our collection development policies help direct that.
[Robin:] And your goals, too.
[Gavin:] Yeah.
[Robin:] So, for our public library, we have a goal that we don't have scholarly textbooks. That is where we draw the line. If someone wanted something that was too scholarly, we would say, "Oh," you know, that "this is not part of our collection development plan. This is not something that we collect." And we would direct you, probably, to Interlibrary Loan. So there are lots of different reasons why you wouldn't have something.
I think about--if a kid was doing a project, I remember from my days working reference, we would have kids come in, and we would pull all the books, like, on planets, or whatever, and have them just all on a cart, and people would come in, and if you came in early, you got the good books, and if you didn't come in early, you got what was left.
[Gavin:] Yes.
[Robin:] And, for the kid that comes in late and gets what is left, what is left should be still accurate. It shouldn't be, "Well, we have this book. It's not accurate, we know it's not accurate, and we have it for a different reason," so that--a lot of it depends on, again, I wouldn't put that in the same area as the books that are accurate.
We have books about "People believe the Earth is flat," and then we have books about the Earth, and those two aren't together. A lot of it is where you place things, and, when you're pulling those books, you're not going to pull that one, because you know it's not accurate. You're not going to put it out there as if it is. There's work for us to do as librarians. We can't just rely on "We're gonna put it all out there and see what happens." Nope. This is a profession for a reason.
[Alex:] Fantastic. Thank you both for your insight on this situation. It's nice to see that there are ways that we can manage to make things that, on face, might seem opposed, still compatible with each other.
[Gavin:] Absolutely. Because, also, the thing to keep in mind is sometimes, that incorrect information can be used to help combat the misinformation.
Pushing Back Against Would-Be Censors
[Alex:] And as if we were seguing into the next question, like we planned it, it's not just, of course, internal matters that regard collections. Especially in our current era, we have plenty of outside groups of various amounts of influence, political power, monetary power, or other such things that have strong opinions about what materials should or shouldn't be part of a library's collection. Usually, their reasons are in that sort of "partisan or doctrinal disapproval" or about "the views and origins of the authors involved." Sometimes their beliefs matetrials created by people who are minorities do not belong in our collections because they'll make the majority uncomfortable, and making the majority uncomfortable is the very worst sin that you can commit in this situation.
- What effective methods do librarians have to push back against this messaging and the demands made of them, whether by boards, administrators, local elected officials, influence groups, or others pushing for changing our collections to make them less representative of our communities?
I know that Gavin has some personal experience with this, so, Gavin, I think you're lead on this.
[Gavin:] Sure. So, my personal experience, of course, is that I fought a book challenge--successfully--back in 2022. So, the first, most important thing you can do, is have a robust reconsideration policy, and know what it is, and have that process, because if you have that process, you know what it is, you're able to stick to it. What it really comes down to is: Does this fit with our collection development policy, or does it not? And if it does, it needs to stay there. And if it doesn't, then, you know, it can go ahead and move on out. But that needs to be the core of whether or not a book remains, not whether or not someone doesn't like the book. That's not what libraries are about.
Once you have that robust policy, that can guide everything, but sometimes these things come in when you don't have that robust policy ready to go. And when you don't, that's where you need to be building your allies, because that's--and we're seeing this problem all over the country right now, we're seeing lawmakers trying to change laws, and really just fundamentally damage what we do as libraries. We're seeing bills out there right now that would be jailing librarians for providing materials to patrons. Which, frankly, was right there in Project 2025 as something that they intended to do.
So, we have, you know, we do need to call on our allies. First of all, fellow librarians, if you're starting to deal with this sort of situation, reach out to other librarians. We can assist. WLA can assist. ALA can assist. Organizations like EveryLibrary and PEN America, and so on, these all can assist. ACLU. One of my allies during my book challenge was GLSEN [changed name to Glisten in 2026], which focuses on ensuring that LGBTQ students have a fair and equitable public education, because it was at a public school. And so, knowing the sorts of allies you can call on, be ready ahead of time.
Know that having a collection that serves all of your patrons means that someone, somewhere is going to be upset at one of your books, at least. Have a plan ready to go. That's why having that robust policy is important, but also, just think about it in terms of when a book challenge happens, not if. Because someone gonna be upset at some point, especially with the way that things have been going. Even here in Washington State. You know, just, be ready, and think of it as a part of the cost of making sure that your patrons are all being served.
[Robin:] I love the thing about have your allies ready, because that is so key. It's also key if your administration is your ally and they are right there behind you and standing behind your decisions. So that is also very, very key.
A lot of it, it feels personal, especially if you're the one who bought that book and you know why you bought it, and you understand why it fits into your collection. A lot of it feels personal. It's not. First of all, don't take that personally, it's not personal to you. It's personal to the person who's requesting reconsideration, but not to you, because you've bought many books in the collection, and any one of those could have gotten this challenge.
I got a challenge last year, and I shouldn't say challenge, because they didn't want it removed, they just wanted it removed from the section that it was in, because they didn't agree.
It was something I never would have thought would get any kind of blowback at all. I was shocked. It literally could be any thing.
The other thing is, we, Becky and I, teach the Anti-Racist class, and part of it is Reader's Advisory and display. The things that we hear from librarians on the feedback that they've gotten once they decide to diversify their areas, or their displays, or their Reader's Advisory materials, I'm shocked, sometimes, at some of the things that people will say out loud. I always tell them, "You're doing the right thing. If you're getting this feedback, that you're making people uncomfortable, because their displays used to be all-white, and all-straight, and all-Christian, and now they are not, now they are diverse, you're doing absolutely the right thing, and they're trying to stop you. Their whole goal, with confronting you, is to make you uncomfortable so that you go back to the old way." Take that as a win, first of all. And learn, yourself, to sit with that discomfort, because no one likes to be called out or confronted like that. Especially if you're not expecting that, and especially if it's rather harsh and rude. Nobody likes that. But, learn to be able to sit with that, because if you can't sit with that, that is when you backtrack. That is when you go back to the place of comfort for you. If you go back to making that display all-white or all-straight, then no one will complain to you, because people who want diverse displays and diverse titles, they don't often come in and complain about not seeing them. It's just the people who want things to go back to the way they were, those are the people who complain, because we refuse to do that.
- Getting it in writing of what you're doing, so when that happens, you know, automatically, what your response is going to be, and
- not taking it personally
are probably the two biggest tips that I would be able to give to people.
I can teach you how to diversify your collections, and that's a wonderful thing, and everyone should do it. But really, where the rubber meets the road is when you get that first complaint, and when you get that request for reconsideration, and it feels terrible. But you're able, if you've done the work and you have your collection development policy and you have your talking points, you're able to deflect that and say, "Yes, this is exactly what we wanted to do, and we're going to continue doing it."
[Gavin:] The only other thing I'd add to what you said is, the people who are making these challenges, you were correct, it's not about us as librarians. It's about the fact that they want to control who is allowed to be heard. That's what this is all about. That's what these challenges are about, it's not an accident that it's LGBTQ and BIPOC voices that are primarily being targeted. Those are the voices they don't want heard.
[Robin:] 100%.
[Alex:] Do you think there's anything about your methods or advice that needs to change if the person making the requests of you is someone with a relative amount of power, whether it's your library boards, your administrators, your local electeds, your national electeds, people who, theoretically, could not only just threaten to make your life miserable, but actually deliver on some of it?
[Gavin:] You know, I can speak to that directly, because the person leading the challenge in my case was my principal, and she did make my life miserable for the six months that the whole challenge went on, until I was able to transfer to a different school. That surprised me, because I'd thought that I would have, you know, when a challenge came along, I would have the support of my administration, and instead, the call was coming from inside the house. But...I still had my collection development policy. I still had my reasons for why I included these books, and I stuck to my guns. I understand why some people wouldn't, because, you know, what I went through, I don't think anyone should have to go through. And I get why some people might not want to do that.
I would encourage you to remember that this isn't about you, it's about our patrons, and the fact that they deserve a diverse collection that shows...the tremendous range of voices of humanity. That's why there are resources out there to help support you when you're dealing with this sort of stuff. And I have, at this point, I have my clan, so to speak, of the people who have also been through this, who, you know, were able to talk about this across the country, that I'm able to call up and say, 'Hey, this is happening," or "I ran into this person," or what have you. Even years later, I'm still dealing with the fallout, but...I get why someone might not want to deal with that, because I know exactly what it entails, and I'd still encourage you to do it, because your patrons need you.
[Robin;] Yeah, there is a reason why I said, at the very beginning, you need your administrative support.
[Gavin:] Mm-hmm.
[Robin:] The closer the complaint is to you, the more uncomfortable it is. Like, if it's, you know, someone in the mayor's office, or someone on a national level, you know, it's like, "Oh, well, there's many layers between them and me." If it's your boss, [laughs]
[Gavin:] [laughs]
[Robin:] that is much, much, different.
[Gavin:] [laughs]
[Gavin:] Yes!
[Robin:] And so stressful! It's so stressful.
I tell people all the time, I don't want you to get fired. That's not my goal here, when I'm telling you what to do and how to diversify your collection, and how to promote that, I don't want you to get fired. If you're in danger of that, please protect yourself. And your mental health as well. But...it is kind of key, what we're doing, so that the people who rely on you are getting a collection that reflects the world that we live in, and not just the world that they wish we lived in. And the more that you can do that, the better everybody will be.
[Gavin:] And get your union, if you've got a union, get your union involved. I would not have kept my job if my union were not there to back me up.
[Alex:] Thank you, that's extremely useful advice for all of us who are working with these kinds of situations.
Library Services
We're going to change topics a little bit. We're finished with the collections portion of it, and we're going to move in more toward library services and buildings and locations.
Meeting Rooms
One of the things that plagues public libraries, perhaps more than schools, although academic libraries as well get this, is how to make good use of the meeting and exhibition spaces that they have available in their location or under their control.
The Library Bill of Rights has something to say about this, about "equitable basis" for use, and in many cases, library meeting rooms,and public library meeting rooms, may be designated as "limited public forums" or other specific legal terms that impose requirements on what the library may or may not do with the space that they have, if they choose to make it available to the public. [Library Bill of Rights VI]
I'm going to get a lot of mileage out of the new ALA Code of Ethics Principle, because this is also another space where the idea of "recognizing and dismantling systemic biases," "confront[ing] inequity," and other things mentioned in that principle may run face-first into some of the other pronouncements, whether as part of the Bill of Rights, or as legal obligations that the library may have. [ALA Code of Ethics IX]
Several groups, in fact, that are fairly hostile to library missions often make it a point to book library meeting rooms and spaces so they can put forth their message. Brave Books, or some of the various groups who like to use Seattle Public Library's meeting room for trans-exclusionary radical feminism, or other similar messages.
Our question here is:
- Understanding, that most libraries are prohibited from telling someone that they're not fond of to take a hike, for whatever reasons may be in place for that:
- How do you, as a library community, communicate to your users that while you can't necessarily stop the thing that is going on, you don't approve of it, you have no interest in it, and you want your communities to understand that this doesn't represent you?
- How do we uphold those new Principle options when we're working with a limited toolkit, often where the things that are imposed on the library are actual, literal, legal requirements? How do we get there from here?
[Gavin:] You want to go first, Robin?
[Robin:] Sure. I don't deal with this at all, actually, but I went asking, and one of the policies that I found that I thought was very interesting was from La Grange Public Library in Illinois. And what I like about their Reservable Spaces Policy is that they tightened it up a lot, just like we tightened up our Request for Reconsideration, once the banned books thing started. Everyone went back to look at their policy and thought, "You could drive a truck through this!" Same thing with reservable spaces, and one of the things that I love, is that not only are reservable spaces only for cardholders, that cardholder has to stay for the entire program. You can't just have them request a room, and then not even show up. If they were doing it for a national group, the policy says you have to be there, you are the one that's responsible for that group.
The other thing that I like, is that they say on every piece of promo material, you have to put this statement: The La Grange Public Library provides meeting room space as a community service. The Library neither sponsors nor endorses this event nor the participating individual(s) or organization(s).
That is a requirement on every piece of promo, every radio ad, every everything they do to promote that program. They are letting everybody know, good or bad, it could be a program they love, doesn't matter, everybody has to do this. They are distancing themselves from anything that is not specifically library-sponsored.
[Gavin:] And that's really where it, you know, that is where we can really thread that needle. Because we do need to make sure, especially if you're in the public library sphere, which I am not, if people can get rooms to meet, people can get rooms to meet and we can't forbid them from meeting based on our ideas or beliefs. But we can set up policies about what the expectations are, and they need to be reasonable, and they need to apply to everyone, and they can't be positional-based. Those ideas coming out of that library, you said La Grange, was it?
[Robin:] La Grange, mm-hmm.
[Gavin:] Those are great, I think. Having that kind of thing, because, again, as long as we make it very clear, "Look, these people are meeting here. They're using the library space because it's a library and you can use that space. We don't have anything to do with their opinions." Making that line clear, I think, is how we address this.
[Alex:] All right, thank you. It's--hmm--[laughs]--I'm still thinking about the La Grange statement and things on that, and going, "Actually, that's brilliant."
[Gavin:] It really is!
[Alex:] To make it a condition of your usage that they have to, essentially, put your disclaimer on everything, that's not a solution that I would have conceived of, so kudos to them for figuring that out.
Counter-Programming Efforts
The other part of it, a lot of the time, especially when Seattle gets in the news about something, a lot of the community groups that are saying, "They're hosting thse people," they're asking the library to put on programming or counter-programming, essentially,that says, "Yes, we understand that you can't stop this groupfrom being present, but it would be nice, or a good sign of showing your support for the community that if, the night that they have it, the day before is full of queer-friendly programming or other sorts of things for that." Does that sound like a good idea, a risky idea, could be both?
[Gavin:] I mean, I think, first of all, libraries should be making sure we're doing outreach to groups to bring them in. Having some of those queer-friendly groups having programming, and making sure that they know they can have this space. There's nothing wrong with that. That's working with your relationships and outreach, and following these ideals of breaking down injustice and breaking down barriers, right, rather than reinforcing them. By doing so, you know, it becomes a partnership. While still just making sure they know "This is your space, you can do--well, it's our space, we're letting you use this space to do your program." I think that can work really well.
I don't think it's necessarily wrong to...in fact, morally and ethically, I definitely think it's right to do this. I think that there could potentially be some legal questions raised, if every time a certain organization did something, the library did programming specifically to counter at the same time, or right around there. That might get a little into some gray areas that would need to be challenged somewhere, and I wouldn't want to see that happen. In my mind, it would be safer to make sure that it's through that outreach idea.
[Robin:] Well, and here's the thing. We are reactive. We want to make sure that people know that they're welcome. We should be doing that all the time, not just when this counter-group is here, but it was last month for 12 days and next month for 15 days, you know, all the time. So that when this happens, they already have a relationship with the library and they know this is not a thing that they're doing because they want to, but that I know that I have a space here as well.
[Gavin:] Yeah.
[Robin:] If it was me, I might little displays up, [laughing]
[Gavin:] Sure, sure.
[Robin:] that were counter, just highlighting my collection, nothing big. I want you to come in and see what we have.
[Alex:] All right, thank you. I wasn't entirely sure about where those gray areas might lie, but I know that some of those requests were more about the library as an entity acting, rather than just, "Ah, and you also can use the meeting room." Thank you for your input on that.
Stuck In Neutrality
Speaking of collection stuff, [chuckles], when we talk about resources that are available, again, the Library Bill of Rights has lots of things about spread and materials and information for all points of view on issues current and historical, and enlightening the people that the library serves. It's very good, very high-concept language sometimes. [Library Bill of Rights, I and II] When we start thinking about matters of politics, at least here in Washington State, the Public Disclosure Commission gets involved as well, and has promulgated an interpretation that basically says that public facilities may not be used to "support or oppose a candidate or ballot proposition."
In addition to those ethical requirements, there are situations in which public information might very well look like it's partisan information, through no fault of anybody but the candidates themselves and their published statements or written things. But the Library Bill of Rights and the PDC both seem to combine with an interpretation that says, "No, libraries, you should stay out of anything political. You're not allowed to have an opinion on anything, or even something that has a whiff of an opinion about something."
- Is there a way that we can thread the needle on making sure that we keep our legal requirements in place, or are libraries stuck in neutrality without the ability to shift into drive and provide that information without worrying that their organization is going to get slapped with complaint, a fine from the Public Disclosure Commission, or worse, a lawsuit from somebody about having waded into politics in some manner?
[Robin:] I was just going to say, we're political, but not partisan. And if you have information across the board, I mean, you can't really not--I'm trying to think of a way for a library to not have political information.
[Gavin:] You really literally stole the words out of my mouth.
[Robin:] Everything is political.
[Gavin:] I was gonna say exactly that.
[Robin:] Even, you know, gosh, once upon a time, Teletubbies were political. Literally everything.
[Gavin:] Some people's existence is political,
[Robin:] Exactly.
[Gavin:] and we provide data. We provide facts. And that's political.
[Robin:] Yes.
[Gavin:] So, as you put it, Robin, we are political, we just cannot be partisan. We cannot say, "We love the Democrats and hate the Republicans!" "We love the Republicans, but hate the Democrats!" We can't do that. We can provide data and information, and if one party happens to not like data and information, that's kind of on them, not on us.
[Robin:] And, you know, every election cycle, there are a ton of political books about whoever is currently in power and why they're terrible, or how we're gonna get back to them, or whatever. There's just a ton. I swear, at every library I've worked at, someone has complained, "I can't believe you have this book!" or "Why don't you have more of this book?" or, and this is where your policies also help. If you have a policy that "we buy an extra copy after there are five holds," then, if you have 20 holds, you should have four copies. And if you don't have four copies of this book, but you have of this book, that's where you're going to run into trouble.
[Gavin:] Yes.
[Robin;] Making sure that you are doing things equitably, even though we don't like that word right now, [laughs]
[Gavin:] Oh, we like that word.
[Robin:] We like that word.
Making sure that you do that is what's going to save you from these accusations.
[Gavin:] Yes.
I'll give a very concrete example, actually. During October 2024, in my library, I set up, because I have, at the high school level, some students were actually able to vote last election. Everyone was interested in it. And my book display was on the election. And so I had Kamala Harris's book, I had JD Vance's book, I had books about the various topics. I did not have a book by Trump. Why did I not have a book by Trump? Well, "The Art of the Deal" was too old, by the collection development policy. I couldn't include it there. A lot of his more recent books had enough factual...inaccuracies, I will say, that it still did not fit within the collection development policy. So I can point to my collection development policy, had I had a complaint, and say, "Well, unfortunately, for these reasons, I was not able to put a book by Donald Trump in the library on this display." By having that policy, that was able to direct me--and I tried! I did try! I looked really hard to find a book by Trump that could fit within that policy, and it just, it did not exist.
[Robin:] [laughing]
[Gavin:] Likewise, there wasn't a book by Governor Walz to put on the shelf, to go against the fact that I had one by JD Vance. That policy does help guide and protect you.
[Alex:] All right. That's...that's helpful, at least. Since we're talking to librarians, we know that we have policies, and that seemingly arbitrary actions rarely are, in fact, arbitrary actions, just that the policies and the decisions that are made behind them may not always be obvious to the observer.
[Robin:] I would say most times they're not.
[Gavin:] Yeah.
[Robin:] Most times people aren't in the weeds, and that could be staff or customers. They're not in the weeds of the decisions. We might have our collection development policy on the webpage, and that is, you know, a page or two or three. The procedures of how we do it, I'm sure we don't have on our website our holds ratio, for instance. So people won't understand why we might have more copies of this and not this. Or why this might be a Lucky Day title and you see it everywhere, and this isn't. It's because of how many holds it has. If that is the case, and I don't blame people for asking, but we need to be better about making sure that people who are on the front lines have that information, so that when someone does ask, and they come to you, thinking they've caught you in some sort of malfeasance because you have more of this than that, then you say, "No. This is the reason why." Again, it's not personal. You didn't make the rules. These are the reasons, it's numbers-based, not partisan-based.
[Gavin:] Yes.
[Alex:] I can imagine that comes up in some very interesting situations, where material that is extremely popular, but potentially grossly factually inaccurate, ends up in a ssituation asking "Which principle do we use here? Do we go 'It's popular, and therefore we should buy it,' or 'It's inaccurate, and therefore we shouldn't?' " The answer is almost certainly, "What does your collection development policy say? Follow that, and it will guide you in the way that you are meant to go."
[Gavin:] Yes.
[Alex:] Okay. This has been a fascinating conversation so far about services and other things, especially for people who may or may not get to see behind the curtain all that much about the inner workings of libraries and library decisions.
Staffing
[Alex:] We've got one more topic that we want to talk about before we call it a night, and that's library staffing.The [Cis] White Woman Problem
When you look at demographics of the library profession, you are almost certainly going to learn two very important things:
- Library workers are overwhelmingly white.
- Library workers are overwhelmingly women.
- Most of the people who work in libraries are also cisgender.
The more you dig into that, the more you realize how intentional that is, but we work with the hand that we're dealt. We can probably tack on a safe assumption:
based on the relative frequency of transgender and non-binary people in the country.
[Gavin:] Mm-hmm.
[Alex:] All of this is caveated, because actually getting demographic data about libraries and librarians is staring into a Magic 8-Ball and hoping the result is not "Reply hazy, try again later." Most likely, we have an over-representation of white, cisgender women in library staffing, and that most likely skews the perspective of the library in subtle and obvious ways, and it may interfere with their ability to do effective communication with the communities that surround them. It may make a library less effective, depending on where you are, if all the staff people look one way and all of the community and residents look another.
Our question here is:
- What responsibilities does a library have to make their staffing match their community demographics, and to make sure that their surrounding community is not represented merely at low levels of power, like clerking or front-line staff, but also in managerial suites, library boards, and other administrative and oversight bodies that make and steer libary policies and procedures?
[Gavin:} So, school libraries, we have somewhat limited power, at least directly speaking. I'll also talk about the indirect in a moment. I am typically on the panel that does the hiring for the aide that I'll have in the library. I do try to make sure that we're looking at diverse applicants. That if we only have white women applying for the aide jobs, that's not really something I can control in my position, but I really do feel it's important to get more diversity in our applicants, and then, from their being hired. I will say, when I first started at Cedar Heights, my aide was a Black woman. She was phenomenal. One of the things that I could very clearly see, was that because she was part of the library staff, and because I treated her as part of the library staff, not as an underling or anything like that, but as my partner in running the library, we had a lot of people look at the library in a new way, that they may not have otherwise. Because they saw the library as a place where they were welcome, right from the get-go. You can still build that, make them feel welcome in other ways, but having that diverse staffing is a lot more immediate, as far as that recognition, in what I have seen, in my experience.
As far as what we can do indirectly, that outreach piece is a big part of it. I will tell you, I am in one of the largest districts in the state. We're one of the few where every school has a full-time, certificated Teacher-Librarian. I need to look at the exact numbers, I don't recall it off the top of my head, but there are close to about 50 schools in the district, between the elementary, middle, and high schools.
[There were 40 schools in Gavin's school district as of the time of the recording.]
There are two Black librarians. That needs to change. That needs to change. We need more diversity in the field, and we get there by encouraging, by outreach, by supporting those who often have the barriers put up in their way, and finding ways to do that. I will tell you, both of those librarians in my district are phenomenal librarians. I could sit here and rave about them for a while, and I think, sometimes, they don't get the credit they deserve. I try to speak up for them, and make sure that I, you know, I am using my privilege--because I have privilege, I'm a cis straight white guy--I'm going to use my privilege to elevate the voices of those who have been sidelined, historically. That's one of the things all of us can do.
[Robin:] That is very true. I think hiring is one thing, retaining is something else.
[Gavin:] Oh, yes. Oh my God! Oh, yes!
[Robin:] [laughing]
[Robin:] Even if an HR department is "We're going out to these places, these different places, and looking in different communities, and advertising," If, when you hire, you still maintain the same level of uncomfortableness for the staff, they will leave, and you will be back where you started.
[Gavin:] Yep.
[Robin:] the other thing I would say is, we're not a monolith, and I think a lot of times, across the board, people seem to think that if you have, you know, one Black person, one LGBTQ person, one Asian person, then any others that you hire are going to be exactly the same. And we're going to do everything that we did with this person, with this other person, and everything will be great. This person loves it here, I can't understand why this other person doesn't love it here. When people do that, I say, "But you're not like every other white person. So why would you think Clarence Thomas and I have the same values, or thoughts, on anything at all? We do not. We do not." If you approach me as if you would approach him, you will get very different results, because we are not the same.
It really is gonna take learning. I know we say this, we've been saying this for years and years and years, that's learning that people have to do on their own. It's not for, you know, anyone that you're trying to hire to teach you that, but it still needs to happen. People need to take that on, so that they can be a better employer, be a better coworker, so that you can keep people that you've worked so hard to hire.
[Gavin:] I will also say that the biggest thing you can do to do that learning is to listen. I've seen a really great piece of advice circling around social media of "If you are a white person and you want to have a better understanding of the Black experience, and you're on social media, find some public figures on social media, who are Black. Follow them. Do not, do not respond, unless there's a very specific 'I have a question for blah-blah-blah,' and you fit that, sure, go ahead then, but be there to see what they have to say. Just listen." You can learn a lot from just listening.
[Robin:] This is very true, and I think we all need to do that. I don't know very much about being trans, and so I go to social media, and I follow trans people, and I see the interactions, and I see what they're talking about, and I see what their concerns are.
[Gavin:] Yes. If you do have people that you know who are a part of that community, again, you can follow them, and again, listen. You know, just hear what they're saying and, yeah. Yeah.
[Robin:] But this is also, to circle back to collection, this is also why we have a diverse collection.
[Gavin:] Yes.
[Robin:] Especially if your community is extremely homogenous. A lot of people say "People need to see themselves on the shelf." And that is true. But the feedback we get, then, is "Well, if I have 0.6% Black people in our population, does that mean I have to have 0.6% of my collection by Black people?" No, those numbers don't go together like that. You can have 100% Black people in your collection, and it would be fine. I think of Ruth Bader Ginsberg when someone asked her "How many women would be enough on the Court? When would it be enough?" and she said, "When there are nine." It can be 100%, and it would be fine. If you have a homogenous community, and you're not seeing people different than you at church, or at, you know, the bowling alley--Do we still have those?
[Gavin:] Yeah.
[Robin:] --at a football game, or at Fred Meyer, or wherever, you especially need to have diverse materials.
[Gavin:] Which, again, circles back to why they're trying to ban books. Because they're trying to control the voices that people are able to hear, thus controlling what people are able to learn. Preventing building that empathy.
[Robin:] Exactly.
[Gavin:] And--yeah, yeah. You've--you nailed it, Robin.
[Robin:] Oh, thank you.
[Robin and Gavin both laugh.]
[Alex:] The Youth Services Librarian in me would be remiss not to shout out Dr. Rudine Sims Bishop and the "Windows, Mirrors, and Sliding Glass Doors" framework that many of us hopefully have drilled into us on the regular about what kind of material people should be seeing upon the shelves, and also that will help them with that empathy issue.
[Gavin:] That's right. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
[Robin:] Yes. We stop at mirrors. We talk about mirrors a lot, and we need to remember the other two.
[Gavin:] It's important for our BIPOC students to see BIPOC heroes in stories, but it's also important for our white students to see BIPOC heroes in stories.
[Robin:] Yes.
[Gavin:] It's important for our straight students to see LGBTQ heroes in stories. Because our heroes need to run the gamut of the human experience and beyond.
[Robin:] 100%.
[Alex:] It's a fantastic thing, and I'm hoping that places that have some of that administrative power, and people who appoint or solicit for library boards and that, are making strong efforts to reach out to their communities and find ways that they can make it so that a greater swath of people can participate in the business of being part of a library board, or an oversight body, or some other enttiy where they can participate in civic life and work with that.
Outro and Thanks
[Alex:] Well, I want to thank Gavin and Robin both for taking their time and providing their expertise to us in this panel. Once again: Thank you, Robin, thank you, Gavin. This has been an enlightening discussion, and we hope that everybody has something that they've taken out of it.
[Robin:] Thank you, and thanks for watching.
[Gavin:] Thank you so much.