February 3rd, 2021
Are We Responsible for Representing All Viewpoints in Collections When Some are Clearly Misinformation?
I really struggle whether to purchase self-published or agenda-based publisher materials that clearly have no basis in fact. Ethically, should we have these materials in our collections? Is creative cataloging an easy out? Titles get the push on fringe websites, podcasts, or biased news sources so we get suggestions for purchase. Are we exacerbating the problem by providing access to known misinformation? It'd be helpful if ALA could come up with some guidelines for how to deal with these resources.
(2) |
Comments (4)
Comments (4)
Hi Amy:
Thanks for joining our conversation. If you were in charge of writing those guidelines for the ALA, what would you say?
I think about this all the time and can't find a good angle on it.
We already have a solid collection development policy in place and I try to apply some kind of standards to most things I purchase. We had to let go of the "must have professional reviews" gig long ago; it became an overused, easy avoidance tactic. We've been doing some "creative cataloging" to incorporate some of these materials into the collection, and these titles do circulate. Sometimes quite a lot! We need to focus on the practical and not just the theoretical.
The issue people have with not being represented is where I think we need to do some work. All politics are basically beliefs when it comes right down to it. If thousands of people follow a belief, do we have an obligation to represent it in some way? Shutting people out for lack of proof could include astrology, religion, any belief-based subject. I think smugly brushing alt-right aside is a part of the mess we're in now. Do I agree with them? Absolutely not, and I mourn the chaos caused by misinformation and disinformation. I purchase all kinds of materials I find offensive for our collection. It's hard to separate personal and even professional bias from our responsibility to represent all views. Ethically, do we need to represent these beliefs? I'm not sure. But I get a lot of suggestions for purchase, and I sure could use some guidance and support from my peers on an ethical path.
Amy, good question. I think most libraries do have collection development policies and procedures they can use to guide in this. For example, at a public library where I worked, we purchased items if they were either on a "core" list (published by librarians and professional organizations) or we had found at least two professional reviews (again from library and publishing journals, or newspapers with professional reviewers) that recommended the item. For self-published material, it gets trickier, but some journals do review such books. At the college where I work now, we are weeding, and our policy supports our removing items that are not consistent with current teaching. So for example, books that represent outdated research on race, gender, or ability. We are not a research institution, and our collection policy makes clear why we purchase material (to support teaching and learning at our institution).
I do not think we are under obligation to provide everything to everyone -- no library has an unlimited budget. And purchasing known misinformation, as you say, contributes to the problem. I believe that even though it is time consuming and sometimes challenging, we owe it to our communities to sort out as best we can what requests are misinformation and explain as politely as possible why we cannot add them to the collection. We can be nonpartisan and still take a stand against misinformation.
I understand the spirit of your comment, but it does beg the question "where do we draw the line?" I suppose that is where the ALA guideline would come in, but it can become a slippery slope. There's obvious mis/disinformation, but what about titles that seem to purposefully omit certain people or movements? Titles that have long been discredited, but could be useful for historical context?