Do Libraries Need A Moral Compass?

Do libraries exist in a neutral zone, where judgement about the standing of authors is suspended and books are valued only for their literary merit, regardless that they might have sprung from, or reflect, some moral sewer?

It’s not an issue that librarians can avoid by falling back on a tradition of neutrality or even-handedness. There’s never been any such thing. Even the great collecting libraries (the US National Library of Congress, the British Library, the Australian National Library) tasked with automatically acquiring a copy of every book that’s being published in their country make judgements. Not always wise ones. A vast swathe of early science fiction was lost because of the LoC’s view at that time that these weren’t really books worth keeping. On the other hand huge libraries of pornography were collected and preserved – partly because people who like that stuff (for instance Sir Richard Burton) can’t ever seem to get enough of it (no trivial matter when the people collecting it drive the industry that generates exploitive material) and partly because the Vatican Library (who have the world’s oldest and largest collection) wanted to be clear in their own minds about what evil looked like. Then there’s the issue of casual (and not so casual) racism and sexism in ‘old’ books. Should they be suppressed or rewritten to reflect modern moral values (if we could even be clear what those are)? Certainly the moral values of the US religious right aren’t mine. But there’s also the risk that if we take a ‘hands-off’ attitude to what was said in old books we might, by ‘walking past’ those statements now without comment, actually be seen to support them. But on the other hand to suppress them is to cover up where we’ve come from and how we’ve progressed (or not) since then. When you are a libary, people notice your choices.

Which leads us to this. Don’t entirely judge the librarian or the library on the basis of the books contained in it. Draw inferences if you like, and certainly regard claims of ‘complete neutrality’ with skepticism – and alarm. There’s no way entirely through the moral maze but I do think it’s worth taking a position, and sharing it with patrons of the library – which starts with our Statement of Inclusion. But needs to continue with a further statement regarding acquisition, classificiation (what goes on the top shelf, what goes on the bottom), and ongoing review. I’m working on it now.

Which brings us to Neil Gaiman. We only have one of his books in the library (Anansi Boys). I’ve never read any of his, which doesn’t mean I think they have no merit – I really have no view on it. I read around 400 books a year and I’ve just never had room on my list for him. Here, though, I think there’s a couple of golden rules. Firstly, listen to the voices of the accusers, and take accusations seriously. Secondly, share that information with the patrons of the library, in the context of the library’s stock. And lastly, invite discussion about these matters, and about our choices about what we keep and what we discard.

[sharethis-reaction-buttons]