Recently, across the United States, public libraries have made frequent appearances among the headlines. Although a perennial issue, challenges to ban books have increased dramatically over the last several years.

Debates continue to surface about programs like “Drag Queen Story Hour” within the library. In response, conservative groups have formed traditional-values-driven version of story time events across the country.

At a more local level, a Weld County librarian recently won a settlement after being fired by High Plains Library district for promoting “LGBTQ and anti-racist” programming. The culture wars are alive and well within our nation’s and Colorado’s public libraries, and to some extent this ought to be expected.

After all, since their founding, public libraries have sought to be among the places within a community which foster civic engagement. The American Library Association’s Declaration for the Right to Libraries affirms that public libraries are meant to provide equitable access for all to information from all points of view, and ought to “provide programs, collections, and meeting spaces to help us share and learn from our differences.”

Within such a community space, ideological viewpoints are bound to clash at times.

Conflict from within

Recently, however, there have been a few stories that have concerned me as a public librarian, as they mark a potential weakness within this democratic institution that I hold near to my heart. My level of concern is heightened because these threats do not come from outside public libraries, but from within.

Recent events include a tweet from the newest presidential appointment to the American Library Association, as well as the shutting down of a community forum at Yolo County Public Libraries in California due to speech that was deemed to be anti-trans.

Emily Drabinski took office as American Library Association’s president in July but she was elected in April 2022. After being elected, Drabinski tweeted excitedly about her election: “I just cannot believe that a Marxist lesbian who believes that collective power is possible to build and can be wielded for a better world is the president-elect of @ALALibrary.” The tweet has since been deleted, but not quickly enough to avoid controversy. It led to various states calling to defund or abandon the American Library Association due to Marxist allegiances.

More recently in Davis, Calif., a Yolo County Libraries regional manager shut down a community conversation on “Fair

and Safe Sports for Girls,” due to one of the speakers insisting that biological males who identify as girls should not be allowed to participate in girls’ sports. The library manager deemed this language to be hate speech against a protected class and therefore against library policy. The program was shut down, and unfortunately, led to various false bomb threats being made against the Northern California library district.

These recent episodes share some similar characteristics, in their nature and in their outcomes. First, the nature of each incident was driven by an ideological assertion (whether personal or institutional) that stands at odds with the democratic nature of public libraries as an institution. Secondly, both incidents led to community responses that weaken trust in public libraries.

Consider, for example, Drabinski’s Marxist identification. While Marxist perspectives can and should be found represented within public library collections, it is highly questionable whether, in practice, the public library has a welcome space within any society grounded in Marxism. While the economic and political implications of Marxism vary, this ideology has been foundational in many communist societies.

Unfortunately, communist societies are not known for their pride in intellectual freedom, nor for their thriving free speech laws. Perhaps the new ALA president believes that her Marxist convictions fit well with her advocacy for libraries, and if so, it would be interesting to hear how. But at a philosophical and practical level, Marxism and the democratic nature of public libraries seem to in serious conflict with one another.

Dueling viewpoints

Now let’s consider the stifling of an important conversation at the Yolo County Public Library. If the public library is an institution meant to encourage civic engagement, then this raises the question of who gets to decide what type of civic engagement is welcome. If the public library is a place where all viewpoints are welcome, how can one justify ending a community forum exploring whether competition between biologically male and female individuals (regardless of gender identity) is fair and safe in youth sports? If the public library prides itself on protecting First Amendment rights, how does one square this with preventing viewpoints that are deemed offensive due to their misalignment with one’s personal social or political views? Regardless of one’s position on the issue of gender identity, all should be able to agree that suppression of free speech (even speech that one disagrees with) is antithetical to public librarianship.

A posture of stewardship

The public library is a wonderful institution, but it does suffer from one point of potential weakness — public libraries are only as democratic as the librarians entrusted to lead them. And if our personal convictions as librarians are in conflict with the democratic ideals of the institutions we lead, then we must ask the question, “What mechanism exists to prevent our personal viewpoints from diminishing our libraries’ democratic strengths?” In an age of identity politics and increased social polarization and isolation, can public libraries remain truly democratic, or will we be driven toward an ideological “Hunger Games,” where the last person standing gets to impose his or her vision upon the masses?

For libraries to thrive for the coming generations, public librarians will need to rediscover a posture of stewardship toward the institutions we serve. One that does not necessarily set aside our personal convictions, but that also recognizes that the institutions we serve are greater than any of their individual parts (or ideologies). Such a vision of stewardship allows us to bring the best of our personal convictions to bear upon the very public work that we do every day, but also helps us to recognize that our personal values do not represent the values of institutions we serve.

Therefore, when our personal values conflict with the pluralistic and democratic nature of public libraries, public librarians ought to recognize that it would be inappropriate to impose those views upon the customers we serve.

Only then will we be able to truly live out our calling as protectors of free speech and welcomers of all viewpoints. If we fail to grasp this broader vision of public librarianship, I’m afraid that institutional trust will continue to wane, and public support for libraries will shrink along with it. If this is the case, then it is our community members who will suffer the consequences for our poor stewardship of this important vocation.

I am optimistic that public libraries have a bright future, but that future is only as bright as our librarians’ abilities to steward what has been entrusted to us.