when “good” books go “bad”: opportunities for progressive collection management in public...

This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 30 November 2014, At: 16:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Public Library QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wplq20

When “Good” Books Go “Bad”: Opportunities forProgressive Collection Management in Public LibrariesJames Jatkevicius aa Boise Public Library , E-mail:Published online: 12 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: James Jatkevicius (2003) When “Good” Books Go “Bad”: Opportunities for Progressive CollectionManagement in Public Libraries, Public Library Quarterly, 22:4, 31-40, DOI: 10.1300/J118v22n04_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J118v22n04_05

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wplq20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J118v22n04_05

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J118v22n04_05

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

When “Good” Books Go “Bad”:Opportunities for Progressive Collection

Management in Public Libraries

James Jatkevicius

ABSTRACT. The credibility of certain materials that libraries acquirefor their collections demands a revisiting of these materials by profes-sional library staff. Rather than a thankless extra task, this can be seen asa professional opportunity for public librarians to contribute to demo-cratic intellectual discourse by adding contextual information that canadd value to compromised materials. However, questions exist about thewillingness of public librarians to be active participants in this discourse,as opposed to serving in their more traditional role of information media-tor and facilitator. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Docu-ment Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2003 by The HaworthPress, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Collection management, credibility of information, crit-ical thinking, weeding, challenged books

The controversy over Michael Bellesile’s book Arming America: theorigins of a national gun culture has triggered some discussion aboutthe role of librarians in addressing the intellectual content of materialswe acquire for our collections. Leonard Hitchcock1 has richly analyzed

James Jatkevicius is Adult Services Librarian, Boise Public Library (E-mail:[email protected]).

Public Library Quarterly, Vol. 22(4) 2003http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J118

2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.10.1300/J118v22n04_05 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

6:29

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the challenges and opportunities from an Academic Library perspec-tive. For public librarians, however, ideas such as “enriching the rec-ord” or withdrawing an item are probably more controversial and lesseasily engaged than they might be in an academic environment. This isunfortunate, since all librarians, indeed, the entire profession, can onlybenefit from active engagement with our materials in ways that may en-hance our patrons’ understanding of the issues surrounding materialsthat may have generated controversy. Such extracurricular professionalactivities, if done well, can only attract positive attention from our usercommunities.

In is interesting to reflect that, despite the introduction of layers ofdigital technology and our enthusiasm as professionals to promote thesetechnologies (and conversely, to warn patrons of the dangers of thingssuch as less than credible Web sites) book selection and acquisition re-mains a core function for public libraries and represents a core compo-nent of our resource offerings. In the year 2003, for example, with theWeb omnipresent in our society as a medium for communication, rec-reation, and research, the Boise Public Library still buys roughly18,000-20,000 books per year at an estimated cost of $300,000. Wehave professional librarians as selectors in all subject areas. These li-brarians dutifully check review sources, take recommendations for pur-chase, and generally try to spend our money to provide a substantiveand meaningful collection for our users.

Despite such an ongoing investment in print materials, indicationssuggest that few libraries are actively resolute about taking responsibil-ity for the content of these books as they mature and decay. Or if theyare, they don’t talk about it much or reflect upon it. In a check of LibraryLiterature & Information Science for 2000-2002, only a handful of arti-cles address the issues of weeding, or “discarding of books, periodicals,etc.” (the actual subject heading). Presumably, the reasons for this gen-erally revolve around staffing and money, i.e., not enough of either.And when we do weed, we tend to focus on the least taxing and contro-versial aspects of a book-physical condition, new editions supplantingthe old, etc. The ongoing value of the ideas contained therein is lesslikely to be scrutinized on a consistent basis, first, because more pedes-trian justifications easily take precedence and second, without thesesimpler justifications it requires great confidence and well-reasonedjustifications to weed at all.

The intellectual content of many non-fiction books, as we know, de-cay at a normal rate. That is, for many subject areas, their value be-comes inversely proportional to their age. Medicine, technology, the

32 PUBLIC LIBRARY QUARTERLY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

6:29

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

social sciences–all the accumulated knowledge in these fields–isacutely vulnerable to devaluation due to more recent findings within thefield of study. In the social sciences, in particular, intellectual fashionhas an influence, as some ideas return renewed as with the changing oftides. For books in the arts and humanities, the value of their content de-cays less rapidly but as social views change our comfort level for olderideas and particularly their depictions can change as well. An obviousand admittedly facile case in point is to ponder the question of howMark Twain’s Nigger Jim in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn hasweathered due to postmodern critical onslaughts.

Twain aside, this type of decay can be dealt with through judiciousweeding in the medical sciences and technologies, as well as by assur-ing a reasonable selection of current thought in the social sciences. It isnatural, expected, requires some vigilance, but is no cause for alarmwithin the library community.

A related issue is comprised of the challenges to public library acqui-sitions and collection development in general. These challenges areduly recorded and consist oftentimes of objections to cultural/politicalcontent in books or other media that community members have foundobjectionable as manifestations of tax dollars at work. A quick check ofALA’s list of challenged and Banned Books for 2001 reveals that manyare targeted for “being unsuited to age group,” i.e., not suitable for chil-dren. This represents a categorical challenge providing evidence thatthe most sensitive area continues to be materials acquired for children’sand young adult collections. Only twenty-four percent of all challengesbetween 1990-2000 were to books in public library collections2 (themajority were in schools and school libraries).

As can be seen from the statistics, books are challenged for predict-able reasons. When world views collide, when conflicting epistemologiescannot be reconciled, core values are in conflict. Given the well-definedself-schemas of those challenging books in the first place as well asthose of most public service librarians, a form of identity politics can bein play. Furthermore, once we start asking normative questions we aredrawing from our own perceptions of desirability in a given situation.This is true of librarians and patrons. The patron argument that youshould withdraw (or label) this book is reflexively anathema to librari-ans inculcated with the values espoused in documents such as theALA’s Library Bill of Rights.3 Such values tell us we should neverwithdraw and never label. The tension and conflict inherent in these sit-uations tend to obscure the potentially progressive role librarians canplay in facilitating discussion and critical thinking about books that per-

James Jatkevicius 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

6:29

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

haps need to be challenged or at least illuminated by loosely-moderateddialogue.

But perhaps a more compelling collection management issue exists.This issue resides beyond the traditional mechanics of weeding out-dated material or challenges to young adult materials on grounds identi-fied by the American Library Association. This issue is one of certifiablydiscredited, fraudulent, or otherwise misleading books and what librari-ans should be doing about them, regardless of whether challenges arebrought by patrons. Unfortunately, information about such materials of-ten comes to light after publication and purchase. At this point, librari-ans now have a direct, custodial responsibility for materials they haveacquired for their collections. They must have first acquired new infor-mation about previously purchased materials and then weigh this infor-mation against other considerations. Withdrawing a book for reasonsrelating to content may require a defense for the decision. Furthermore,one could argue that the final word on the credibility of the intellectualcontent may not yet have been spoken. All of the above is a way of argu-ing that we don’t want to deal with this.

Even the most critical thinkers are influenced by their value sets andare constantly trying to reconcile them when new information chal-lenges these values. When patrons challenge books, we tend to knowthat they are wrong, and we push back. ALA’s Intellectual FreedomManual, 6th edition, essentially attempts to profile the typical “censor”of library materials in a section entitled The Censor: Motives and Tac-tics. Speculating on the censor’s motives, the document suggests thatthe “. . . censor may fail to see that the library fulfills its obligations tothe community it serves by providing materials presenting all points ofview and that it is not the function of the library to screen materials ac-cording to arbitrary standards of acceptability.”4 This document seemsto imply that librarians are not prone to the same tendencies and motiva-tions when it comes to making judgments on information content. In-stead, we are the face of omniscient, tolerant, and objective calm withinthe storm of political and religious rant and intellectual discourse.

But what about librarians actively challenging books based on theircontent? Is this an issue we feel is beyond the need for addressing?

Leon Festinger,5 in his classic study on cognitive dissonance describeswhat he calls selective exposure to ideas which works to minimize ourcognitive dissonance by limiting our encounters with ideas and informa-tion incongruent with our value sets and world views. Librarians, perhapsmore than others, tend to rationalize away their selective exposure activi-ties by arguing that we are constantly exposed to the entire spectrum of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

6:29

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

ideas in all disciplines by virtue of our professional roles. However, ourtraditional professional roles, while allowing us considerable surface ex-posure to a wide-range of ideas, often patron-generated, also allows us toconsistently sidestep any immersion in this idea spectrum. We merely en-able inclusiveness and pass no judgment. Frankly, we delude ourselves inour profession, saluting our open-mindedness toward the broad spectrumof ideas. As facilitators and brokers, by and large, of information controland access, rather than of creators of ideas and information, we have littlemotivation to immerse ourselves in the richness of intellectual competi-tion and, indeed, combat. We are in the arena, not on the field.

As facilitators, most public library professionals form some opinionover time of their own obligation to the collection and the patron. Someof this is informed by ALA’s Committee on Intellectual Freedom. Acase can be made that many in the library profession choose it to avoidbeing (or being perceived as being) active participants in the sometimesbruising democratic discourse required of participants in most aca-demic or professional activities. Leonard Hitchcock refers to us as somany “eunuchs guarding the harem,”6 i.e., safely cloaked in the role ofobjective facilitators of recreational and educational materials for thecommunities we serve. We do not feel it appropriate to impose our val-ues on the information we manage or make them known to our patrons,except in the insidious and passive form of acquiring material for thecollection. And yet we do.

We may feel we are striving to be “objective” (whatever that means)–and while true objectivity may be illusory, facts do exist and can be fairlyor unfairly represented. Honest endeavors toward truth can also be distin-guished from attempts to obscure and redefine it. Facts and truth, how-ever, have no defense against unscrupulous writers (and don’t even exist,it seems, for post-structuralist ones). Furthermore, evidence of their mis-appropriation or misrepresentation is not yielded easily and cannot beeasily deduced by librarians without the time, expertise, or inclination to-ward obsessive epistemological vigilance. No sane librarian would arguefor a thorough combing of our non-fiction stacks to determine the credi-ble from the incredible; honest intentions from deception. There aretimes, however, when this information is inconveniently laid at our door-step for us to ignore or confront. Again, given our seemingly constitu-tional aversion to conflict and engagement we are inclined to willfullyignore such evidence.

Examples of this evidence include the much discredited “recoveredmemory” syndrome and authors such as Sue Blume’s Secret Survivorsand Bass and Davis’ Courage to Heal, David Irving’s scholarly reputa-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

6:29

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

tion and objectivity regarding the Nazis and the holocaust, andBinjaminWilkomirsky’s fraudulent holocaust memoir. A particularly in-teresting case I uncovered is the satire Report from Iron Mountain on thePossibility and Desirability of Peace. Published in 1967, Report fromIron Mountain was purported to be a secret government report that hadbeen suppressed because of the controversial nature of its conclusions,viz., that a condition of permanent peace would have profound and cata-strophic consequences for our economy and that if war could not be per-petuated then suitable alternatives must be found. These alternativesincluded space research with unattainable objectives and alternative ene-mies such as manufactured environmental disasters and even extraterres-trials. The report was identified as the work of prominent scholars. Theperpetrator, Leonard Lewin, confessed to the hoax in 1972.

While some labeled it satire others were all too ready to believe in thebook’s authenticity. Our catalog still doesn’t get it, where its record tim-idly reposes with the following subject headings: (1) Peace (2) War and(3) Disarmament: Economic Aspects. However, WorldCat doesn’t han-dle it any better (see below).

Report from Iron Mountain is a peculiar, if not unique challenge forlibrarians in that it began life as a conscious hoax and, no matter howskillfully presented, was outrageous enough to be quickly confronted assuch in some quarters.

But perhaps the most dramatic recent example of how responsiblebook acquisition can leave us with ongoing responsibilities to our pa-trons is the cautionary tale of Michael Bellesiles’s book Arming Amer-ica: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. Initially lauded as being abreakthrough piece of research that would transform the national gundebate it has since been identified as, at best, a textbook example ofsloppy research and, at worst, at least, in some areas, fraudulent. Facetsof Bellesile’s research have been scrutinized by independent panels ofscholars at Emory University and Columbia and the criticism has beenharsh. Bellesiles has subsequently resigned under fire from Emory Uni-


WorldCat record for Report from Iron Mountain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

6:29

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

versity, while Columbia, in an unprecedented move, has rescinded theBancroft Prize initially awarded to Bellesiles for the book. In addition,Knopf, his publisher, has withdrawn the paperback edition, only to haveit be picked up by Soft Skull Press.

The Boise Public Library, like many libraries, bought copies of thebook when initial reviews and media sources touted its impeccablescholarship and its significant contribution to the ongoing gun controldebate. The copies since circulated to varying degrees. Are we missingan educational opportunity by leaving the responsibility of illuminatingthe subsequent second life of this text to others? I believe so. I know thatmany public librarians would argue that we do not, and should not,make value judgments about the materials and information our patronschoose to engage. This is false, and frankly, intellectually dishonest. In-deed, what on earth are we doing in this profession if we are unwillingto pass value judgments on books and other informational media?

But let us not to make Bellesiles the sole piñata at the party as there areother fine examples for collection management librarians to scrutinize. S.Walter Poulshock’s The Two Parties and the Tariff in the 1880’s was ex-posed by Brooklyn College History professor Jerome Sternstein7 in themid 1960s and he provides a reminder of Poulshock’s blatant academicfraud in an article from the History News Network. According to theWorldCat database, over ninety libraries still hold copies of Poulshock’sbook.

Such a list could go on and on, but here is the fundamental questionwe should ask of ourselves and our colleagues: Once compelling evi-dence is presented that challenges in a substantive way the credibility ofa book or author what then is our responsibility to the patron, the collec-tion, the profession, and ourselves? Certainly, we can ignore the issue.After all, there are all of those other books in the collection that may de-velop credibility problems and there isn’t enough time in the work dayto revisit individual items simply because value of a work is being ex-ternally re-defined. We could argue that we have, for practical pur-poses, discharged our responsibility by laboring to the collection byacquiring the book after a faithful perusal of review literature. We couldrationalize that a book contributes to debate merely by the quality ororiginality of its thesis, regardless of the flaws of intellectual manufac-ture into book form. While, prima facie, this seems absurd and offensiveto truth and critical thought, it has indeed been suggested in light of theBellesiles controversy by liberal supporters of his thesis. And, of course,this last argument would place us squarely in the arena of intellectualdiscourse, presumably where most of us would rather not like to be. In


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

6:29

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

fact, in the face of the onslaught of pluralities of personal expressionthat continue to replace facts with feeling, we seem to experience somecollective discomfort when prodded to become defenders of truth andclarity. We are intellectually indisposed. It is too much work.

Having said that, we can make value judgments as library profession-als. Actually, we do all the time–we do it in every reference transactionand every book purchase and every resource allocation. We do it by rec-ommending one particular source of information over another, by gaug-ing how much information a patron wants and its quality. By embracingthis fact of our professional life we become better equipped to deal withour own knowledge limitations, and can also become perhaps lesssqueamish about taking sides regarding the intellectual content of thematerials we select.

Practically speaking, what procedures can be recommended to publiclibrary collection managers and selectors confronted with firm evidenceof fraudulent or discredited material? Despite the fact that only one li-brary (as of May 2003) has withdrawn Arming America, I would arguethat it is not a non-issue, not if we have any self-respect as informationprofessionals.

While some may disagree, we are not opening some Pandora’s Boxby involving ourselves in activities that enhance our patrons’ under-standing of our materials. We are not then obligated to review every sin-gle item in our stacks. Instead, we can initially choose a cautious“in-box” approach whereby only those items “red-flagged” by a pre-de-fined threshold of post-publication review are considered for treatment.We could establish clear guidelines for removal (much like weedingguidelines) or for supplementing the book with subsequent commen-tary that enhances understanding of its content and its context. As PhilipHoman8 notes about Hitchock’s recommendations, this “commentary”is merely designed to provide a contextual location for the item as anadjunct to its physical location. It would be done for only the occasionalitem. It would not be an editorial comment. It would not review theitems contents, but only reference the cogent commentaries that appearpost-publication. This commentary can be attached to the catalog rec-ord, per Hitchcock’s recommendations in the Journal of Academic Li-brarian, or in extreme cases, attached as a supplement to the book itself,in concert with a book display, book talk, or other illuminating mediaevent. Such selected examples, done well, can have a long-term educa-tional effect on the patron as cautionary tales when engaged in the worldof published ideas. While this may sound radical to a profession that os-tensibly blanches at the idea of labeling anything (even as our traditions


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

6:29

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and activities are awash in labels) I submit that it’s better than beingcalled irrelevant, or worse, mere eunuchs guarding the harem.

SAMPLE GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING MATERIALSFOR ENRICHMENT REVIEW

An enrichment review can be triggered by any of the following events:

1. A request for reconsideration of non-fiction library materials2. Articles criticizing the work appearing in legitimate print and elec-

tronic review sources, including web logs. Initial criticisms must becorroborated by a 2nd legitimate source. Criticisms are duly broughtto the attention of the responsible selector who is then obligated tocorroborate or otherwise substantiate these criticisms.

Criticisms must address the credibility of the work and not tangentialaspects that may legitimately call into question its value, such as obscu-rity of writing, poor editing, simplistic logic, etc. Questions about the ac-tual veracity of the contents must be raised to merit an enrichment review.

If the selector determines, through the review process, that the work inquestion is flawed in a manner that severely undermines its credibilityand thus, the value of the work, the enrichment process is then triggered.

The enrichment process may involve removal of the work, enhancementof the catalog record with contextual information regarding criticismsbrought and substantiated, or an assignment of the work in a periodic dis-play of similar works, with a list of these materials listed on the library’sweb page under a subject link called “Compromised Library Materials.”

This last recommendation is not as controversial as it may appear, asmost public libraries dutifully present banned books displays to remindtheir patrons of the dangers of censorship. What more meaningful coun-terpoint, what better promotion of critical thinking and the true com-plexity of published thought, than to periodically showcase “compromised”materials as cautionary tales to the reader that the process taking us tothe mantle of mature awareness and distilled knowledge is a strewnminefield that must be carefully scrutinized and picked through cau-tiously? Let it be a reminder, too, that not all publishers and publishedideas are created equally, or honestly, and that the process of garneringknowledge of our world (much like the process of building a library col-lection) is not a simple acquisition of published ideas and beliefs, allpresented honestly and lucidly, and all happily congruent with ideas andbeliefs of our own.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

6:29

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

NOTES

1. Hitchcock, Leonard. “Enriching the record.” Journal of Academic Librarianship,Sept 2000, 26 (5): 359-364.

2. http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/Intellectual_Freedom3/Banned_Books_Week/Related_Links7/Challenges_by_Initiator,_Institution,_Type,_and_Year.htm Last accessed 6/6/03.

3. http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/Intellectual_Freedom3/Statements_and_Policies/Intellectual_Freedom2/Library_Bill_of_Rights.htm.

4. ALA Intellectual Freedom Manual 6th ed. ALA, Office of Intellectual FreedomChicago, IL 2003. P.366-369.

5. Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA. StanfordUniversity Press, 1957.

6. Hitchcock.7. History News Network. http://hnn.us/articles/568.html Last accessed 6/15/03.8. Homan, Philip. “A Record Enriched Part II: the Case for a Library Catalog Note

for Michael Bellesile’s Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture”Idaho Librarian 54 (4) May 2003.

Received: 04/03/03Revised: 06/11/03

Accepted: 06/20/03


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

6:29

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

when “good” books go “bad”: opportunities for progressive collection management in public...

Documents