3 ms·

It's interesting how it expects librarians to be arbiters of morals and ethics - they should recognize when ideas in books are good or bad (or in this case more

by Hitton 7y ago

It's interesting how it expects librarians to be arbiters of morals and ethics - they should recognize when ideas in books are good or bad (or in this case more accurately current and "outdated"). That includes explicitly mentioned "outdated" philosophies on ethics and moral values (are Aristotelian ethics outdated?) and "hot button" topics like euthanasia, genetic engineering, and sexuality. It suggest to "Be aware of changes in political rhetoric and discard books with outdated ideas." Also "Weed books that reflect outdated ideas about gender roles in childrearing." And atop of being arbiter of wrongthink it expects librarian to keep abreast of scientific knowledge and review books on organic gardening "for accuracy and currency of information after five years".

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Note that this is a decentralized effect though. There's no grand authority saying to remove ideas, librarians are making the call themselves. But it is saying a librarian may not want to loan out to kids books claiming women are inferior or the like. It leaves librarians individually to decide if a book's historical value outweighs the negative values of its older views as well. It doesn't expect a librarian to be an expert in all fields, but on nonfiction topics, many five year old books can safely be discarded in exchange for newer ones in fields like science and technology in particular. If one is regularly replacing books about the planets, one doesn't need to know that Pluto is no longer defined as a planet, every book in the last five years on the subject will do that for you. Another important note is that CREW is for public libraries which can only maintain a collection of a certain size and which needs a high percentage of material to be frequently accessed. An academic or research library would have a very different strategy.
gwd 7y ago
> It's interesting how it expects librarians to be arbiters of morals and ethics First of all, nothing you can do in this subject is morally neutral. By calling this "wrongthink", you are also bringing in morality; and implying that perhaps librarians should be arbiters of morals and ethics by retaining certain works. Secondly, it expects the people paying librarians' salaries to care about these things. Typically this will be the local taxpayers. Obviously when you found a library, funded entirely from your own personal wealth, then the librarians will arbitrate what kinds of books are or are not kept based on your ideas of morals, ethics, and usefulness.
Spooky23 7y ago
I would focus less on the nonexistent purging of Aristotle and more on the more modern issues. A library in 1950 would contain lots of works extolling the virtues of empire, white mans’ burden, segregation, etc. Librarians are passionate people who think a lot about these issues.
mumblemumble 7y ago
> It's interesting how it expects librarians to be arbiters of morals and ethics The author isn't trying to shovel that onto librarians. The author simply understands and is acknowledging that that is an inherent, inescapable part of the librarian's job. This would come as no surprise to the manual's intended audience, the people who brought you Banned Book Week. They know their business. And, yes, discarding books with outdated ideas is a smart, practical move. These are often books that people are going to be less interested in checking out, because people would rather check out books that reflect contemporary ideas. For example, I'm not at all interested in checking out an etiquette book that reflects mid 20th century ideas about gender roles. I would be much happier to take advice from an etiquette book that isn't actively offensive to me, and I'm not alone in that, so it makes sense for the librarian to get rid of the old etiquette book in order to make room for one that people would actually check out. There is obviously also some value in keeping old books that people don't want to read anymore. Where you strike the balance there is going to have a lot to do with the library's purpose. Research libraries and public lending libraries have different goals and responsibilities.

by Hitton 7y ago

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

Note that this is a decentralized effect though. There's no grand authority saying to remove ideas, librarians are making the call themselves. But it is saying a librarian may not want to loan out to kids books claiming women are inferior or the like. It leaves librarians individually to decide if a book's historical value outweighs the negative values of its older views as well. It doesn't expect a librarian to be an expert in all fields, but on nonfiction topics, many five year old books can safely be discarded in exchange for newer ones in fields like science and technology in particular. If one is regularly replacing books about the planets, one doesn't need to know that Pluto is no longer defined as a planet, every book in the last five years on the subject will do that for you. Another important note is that CREW is for public libraries which can only maintain a collection of a certain size and which needs a high percentage of material to be frequently accessed. An academic or research library would have a very different strategy.

gwd 7y ago

> It's interesting how it expects librarians to be arbiters of morals and ethics First of all, nothing you can do in this subject is morally neutral. By calling this "wrongthink", you are also bringing in morality; and implying that perhaps librarians should be arbiters of morals and ethics by retaining certain works. Secondly, it expects the people paying librarians' salaries to care about these things. Typically this will be the local taxpayers. Obviously when you found a library, funded entirely from your own personal wealth, then the librarians will arbitrate what kinds of books are or are not kept based on your ideas of morals, ethics, and usefulness.

Spooky23 7y ago

I would focus less on the nonexistent purging of Aristotle and more on the more modern issues. A library in 1950 would contain lots of works extolling the virtues of empire, white mans’ burden, segregation, etc. Librarians are passionate people who think a lot about these issues.

mumblemumble 7y ago

> It's interesting how it expects librarians to be arbiters of morals and ethics The author isn't trying to shovel that onto librarians. The author simply understands and is acknowledging that that is an inherent, inescapable part of the librarian's job. This would come as no surprise to the manual's intended audience, the people who brought you Banned Book Week. They know their business. And, yes, discarding books with outdated ideas is a smart, practical move. These are often books that people are going to be less interested in checking out, because people would rather check out books that reflect contemporary ideas. For example, I'm not at all interested in checking out an etiquette book that reflects mid 20th century ideas about gender roles. I would be much happier to take advice from an etiquette book that isn't actively offensive to me, and I'm not alone in that, so it makes sense for the librarian to get rid of the old etiquette book in order to make room for one that people would actually check out. There is obviously also some value in keeping old books that people don't want to read anymore. Where you strike the balance there is going to have a lot to do with the library's purpose. Research libraries and public lending libraries have different goals and responsibilities.