Library Boards Must Be Trained In Intellectual Freedom

Recently my area’s library board of trustees overstepped their purview and made a really bad intellectual freedom call involving a program called Trans 101. Then, not long after, one of our library board members wrote an op-ed about the issue where they expressed their homophobia and transphobia proudly.

Before this informal essay starts, I want to make clear that I am speaking as a private citizen, taxpayer, and lifelong patron of my library system. The fact that I work at one of these branches a few days a week is mostly irrelevant, but it does provide me with particular insights into issues surrounding Intellectual Freedom as a concept. Though, as a writer, intellectual freedom issues are already in my wheelhouse. My opinions expressed here are my own, I will not be signing this letter as if I represent the library in any way, shape, or form, as a certain board member felt compelled to do so when writing the above-mentioned op-ed.

Let me also make clear up front that I am not criticizing the Mid-Continent Public Library system. I love MCPL with all my heart, but I am severely disappointed with its board of trustees. They are a very separate entity from the library system itself, their liaison to the library staff being the MCPL CEO they have hired. While initially this essay was focused on the one board member who seems to be propagating the issue surrounding the already poorly handled Trans 101 situation, I chose to refocus. The entire time I was drafting this essay I was looking for an entity to blame for the events below. I think it’s clear now these events transpired because the library board does not understand their purview or the harm their inaction has caused in not condemning the words of their colleague. But before we get to potential solutions, I want to lay out the facts.

A Summary of Events:

Like many library systems the Mid-Continent Public Library system provides programs, free to the public, that aim to educate. There was a program called Trans 101. This program did a wonderful job in educating the public about transsexuality. The content was purely educational and obviously non-mandatory for the public. It was made accessible to educate anyone who wanted to learn about the minority group in America of 1.4 million people.

Some people showed up at a board meeting to complain about the program, several of them who had not attended. Some people showed up to compliment and thank MCPL for the educational experience. Here's a few bullet points to explain the situation as simply as I can:

• ·         The job of the library board is to set policy and provide financial oversight.

• ·         Our library system is a part of the American Library Association as well as the Missouri Library Association, both which demand our library system follow a certain set of rules respecting Intellectual Freedom—the singular core concept of library work. This means providing equal access to information for everyone and also making sure that everyone can see themselves in the library’s materials. This is because libraries are supposed to reflect their communities.

• As per the American Library Association's Bill of Rights, reconsideration for a program or event in a library system must follow the same written procedures that reconsiderations for all other materials follow.

“Concerns, questions, or complaints about library-initiated programs and displays are handled according to the same written policy and procedures that govern reconsiderations of other library resources. These policies should apply equally to all people, including, but not limited to, library users, staff, and members of the governing body. The policies should set forth the library’s commitment to free and open access to information and ideas for all users.” (“Library-Initiated Programs and Displays as a Resource: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.”).

• In response to the complaints about Trans 101, the procedure for responding to Intellectual Freedom issues as well as the policy for reconsidering materials were both disregarded by the board as they assumed a power not within their purview. The library board stated they would “pause” the program in order to “reevaluate it.” A clear overstep given ALA guidelines.

• The program was rescheduled, but a “content warning” on the program’s event listing was added online (this is a whole different conversation about how libraries should not make content judgements).

• There are currently no scheduled dates for the program. This could be because it wasn’t scheduled this far out to begin with – or the program is on hold again.

• Library leadership explained their decision but an explanation for not executing the ALA’s clear instructions for program reconsideration was missing.

·         Not long after the board meeting regarding the Trans 101 program happened the situation worsened. A board member wrote an op-ed for The Landmark a newspaper of Platte County and another one of her area’s papers. The op-ed was transphobic and homophobic to say the least. You can read it here before my very curt response later in this essay (scroll to 11/6/19): http://www.plattecountylandmark.com/LetterstoEditor2019.htm

So, What’s the Problem?

Simply put, the board deciding to “pause” or “reevaluate” the program cuts right past the process of formally reconsidering a material. This was a program that already went through many months of vetting by a well-trained and highly capable Community Programming Department and a rather robust Marketing Department. The board had no right to pause the program or to reevaluate it – as per the ALA Bill of Rights.

This was the equivalent of someone bringing a book or DVD to the front desk and saying they were offended by it. But what should librarians do when this happens? It’s clear the board of trustees was not required to take the same intellectual freedom training the rest of the system’s staff was required to retake not long ago. Here’s a variation of what I say – what I was trained to say – working in this system when someone challenges a material:

“I’m really sorry you feel that way about this item, but as a public library we strive to have something for everyone. There are plenty of ideas in this building even I don’t agree with personally, but the public’s right to access information is more important. I’m sure I can help you find some items you’d be interested in. What sorts of things were you excited to look for today?”

Diffuse. Redirect. If they persist, they are handed paperwork so they can formally write in about a reconsideration request.

Libraries deal in ideas, and this same argument would be applicable to defend any material I personally find offensive or distasteful. This argument defends pro-Trump books in our libraries as well as liberal texts, as well as fiction and non-fiction. The only judgement a library should ever pass on an idea is where to put it so it’s accessible to those who want it.

When the “pause” for “reconsideration” (for a program that’s already gone through rigorous vetting) happened, staff were appalled the board made this overreach. Especially after having gone through a newly revamped intellectual freedom training program that preached just the opposite of the board’s actions.

Now, after this brief “pause” and “reconsideration” the program went back up. I wish I could say the board’s bad call, blatantly abusing power that was not theirs in the first place was where this stopped. It wasn't.

To Those Serving on the Library Board

I am personally disappointed by several people I’ve known for years who serve on this board. They are respected leaders in our community who have rightfully earned that respect. I still have so much respect for them, but their actions and inaction in the wake of dealing with this intellectual freedom issue and its fallout was appalling to me. Disappointing. And honestly, a slap to the face.

Beyond the poor handling of the Trans 101 complaints, I am disappointed to have seen these people remain silent as a colleague spewed hatred.

My grandfather, Dr. Victor Gragg, who dedicated his life to education and his community was the board president for a time. He was also elected president of the Missouri Library Association, despite not being a librarian – an incredible honor. I know he, as well as my own father, would be disappointed in me if I did not fiercely write these criticisms to the best of my ability.

To those serving on the board who know me: you command great respect as private citizens and to condemn your colleague’s hatred would be the right thing to do. Instead, you’ve chosen to remain silent thus far. Maybe some of you I’m talking about are fearful to respond, or maybe you’re unconcerned because you don’t understand the impact this situation has had on the LGBTQ+ community. You have damaged your relationship with me as well as your relationship with the queer community. This is your wake-up call. Start speaking out for what you claim to stand for.

The Outlier Board Member

Library leadership made it clear to staff that the board member who wrote the abhorrent op-ed does not represent the library. She is only 1/12 of the board’s opinion. However, this sentiment has not adequately been conveyed to the public.

Originally there was a whole section concluding this essay that dealt with this bigoted board member. But after much consideration I decided this individual is less than consequential. It would not be worth my time to pick apart and mock her “letter” to The Landmark – fun, absolutely, but not worth my time or yours. This is also why I have not used her name. But, in lieu of having fun serving out the full dish of justice I previously drafted, I will make this point about that lone board member before making some suggestions to the MCPL Board of Trustees and their serving library leadership:

The board member who wrote the homophobic op-ed is a gem of sorts. The severe conditions of the metamorphism required to create such a gem are the gormless pressures of her own mind. Gemstones hang around forever, sucking up all the awe they can while there are people to pay attention to them. But at the end of the day – no matter the crude process that made the gemstone what it is – it’s just a rock. Nothing more. And like all rocks, eventually we’ll bury common gems like this with time. I’m glad this gem put itself on display so we could see its fundamental flaws – so that we could all have free reign to really examine and confront this lackluster splattering of a rock’s ideas. Because it is with this deeply flawed gem that we can find a solution. This board member’s fundamental misunderstanding of what intellectual freedom is makes the solution to this mess clear.

How can this library board redeem themselves? After seeing them clearly demonstrate that they do not understand their own purview, I would suggest the board review their own framework and bylaws. Current members of the board should speak out against their dissenting member publicly. The board does not need to make an official condemnation of the dissenting member’s actions, but voices need to be raised where they have been silent so far. Furthermore, this board should undergo a rigorous training on intellectual freedom as well as review their power and purview. If the dissenting board member is unable to understand the concept of intellectual freedom, the board should remove her from its body. If a process for this does not exist, then the board should move to create such a process.

Hopefully we will see some of these actions soon. Or the board risks permanent damage to its relationship with the community it serves.

Citations

“Library-Initiated Programs and Displays as a Resource: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, 11 July 2019, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/programsdisplays.