If a library board removes a communist book from a library, librarians will object, saying that’s viewpoint discrimination, and the ACLU will sue over it. A splintered Supreme Court ruling indicated it may well violate the First Amendment for school libraries to discard books based on viewpoint, in its plurality opinion in Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982).
But librarians — a notoriously left-leaning profession — routinely remove books with conservative viewpoints, through “weeding” policies. “Self-described ‘Marxist lesbian’ Emily Drabinski is the American Library Association’s” president, notes Intellectual Takeout. “On winning the election, Drabinski posted about herself on Twitter, ‘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.’”
Leftists view conservative positions — such as opposition to affirmative action, left-wing feminism, or taxpayer-funded sex changes — as reflecting bias based on race, gender, or LGBTQ status. Librarians follow “weeding guidelines” that tell them to “discard” library books “that reflect gender, family, ethnic, or racial bias” or are “outdated,” notes law professor Eugene Volokh. To progressives, lots of things reflect “gender, ethnic, or racial bias.” For example, under “‘hostile learning environment’ harassment codes” implemented by progressives, “students and campus newspapers have been charged with racial or sexual harassment for expressing commonplace views about racial or sexual subjects, such as criticizing feminism, affirmative action, sexual harassment regulations, homosexuality, gay marriage, or transgender rights, or discussing the alleged racism of the criminal justice system.”
School libraries typically have books by communism’s founder, Karl Marx, but not the Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman, who wrote “Capitalism and Freedom,” notes education expert Joanne Jacobs. School libraries stock books by Ibram Kendi, who advocates racial discrimination against whites, but not John McWhorter, a black author who is critical of Kendi’s ideology.
The American Library Association and the Texas Library Association cite as the correct policy on removing library books two references, The Weeding Handbook and A Weeding Manual, to argue against conservatives removing library books based on “viewpoint” or because the books are “controversial.” But these librarians only object to conservatives removing books (such as pornographic LGBT books), not to progressives removing books that they view as “biased”, “inflammatory,” “racist,” “sexist” or “stereotyping” — which progressives interpret to include a vast array of conservative or traditional books even when normal people wouldn’t view the books as racist, because they don’t demonize minority groups or use racial slurs.
As law professor Eugene Volokh notes, these librarian-designed references — The Weeding Handbook and A Weeding Manual — “expressly contemplate ‘removal of books that, in the view of government officials, contain ‘inappropriate’ ideas or viewpoints.”
Below are some passages from A Weeding Manual (emphasis added):
For all items, consider the following problem categories and related issues:
Poor Content: … Material that contains biased, racist, or sexist terminology or views …
Juvenile Fiction … Consider discarding older fiction especially when it has not circulated in the past two or three years. Also look for books that contain stereotyping, including stereotypical images and views of people with disabilities and the elderly, or gender and racial biases.
323 (Immigration & Citizenship) … Weed biased or unbalanced and inflammatory items.
330 (Economics) … Weed career guides with gender, racial, or ethnic bias.
390 (Customs, Etiquette & Folklore) … Discard books that lack clear color pictures. Holiday-specific books may only circulate once or twice a year. Discard books that are MUSTIE or that reflect gender, family, ethnic, or racial bias.
398 (Folklore) … Weed based on the quality of the retelling, especially if racial or ethnic bias is present.
709 (Art History) … While information may not become dated, watch for cultural, racial, and gender biases.
740 (Drawing & Decorative Arts) … Discard books on crafts that are no longer popular (macramé) or that feature gender bias.
793-796 (Games and Sports) … Watch for gender and racial bias in sports and athletics.
800 (Literature) … Watch for collections that feature gender or nationality bias and outdated interests and sensitivities.
E (Easy Readers/Picture Books) … Weed books that reflect racial and gender bias.
JF (Juvenile Fiction) … Evaluate closely for outdated styles, artwork, and mores, or biased viewpoints.
As Professor Volokh notes, “these criteria” involve “viewpoint-based decisionmaking (as opposed to using viewpoint-neutral criteria such as whether the book has in fact been checked out in the last few years).”
Similarly, The Weeding Handbook, published by the American Library Association, also calls for some viewpoint-based removal decisions:
It is … imperative to view materials through the lens of diversity and inclusion. Outdated or misrepresentational material needs to be removed on a regular basis. The Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction has a very thorough tool for screening for biased content available online, … Washington Model Resource: Screening for Biased Content in Instructional Materials.
Carefully evaluate books on Black history, women’s issues, and gender for language and bias…. Are materials free of stereotypes and assumptions?
[Quoting one librarian favorably:] “Removing the Dr. Seuss books that are purposefully no longer published due to their racist content is absolutely acceptable because it’s an act of basic collection maintenance. It is our professional duty to make those carefully chosen decisions to ensure our collections are up-to-date and suitable for the communities we serve…. Librarians who claim to be antiracist need to remove these books….”
Libraries would do well to remember the first ‘M’ in MUSTIE: Misleading. CREW goes even further to define that “material that contains biased, racist, or sexist terminology or views” should be weeded.
[Quoting another librarian favorably:] “… This … highlights a new and much needed discussion in weeding principles: the weeding out of harmful materials with racist cultural stereotypes.” “My philosophy is indeed to let it go when it comes to racially offensive material.”
As Volokh observes, librarians apply these viewpoint-discriminatory precepts in practice: “A 2021 School Library Journal report notes, without criticism, that 47.3% of public library respondents (and 65.1% of school library respondents) included in “criteria for weeding” “inappropriate content (e.g., racist, biased, etc.). The California Department of Education Weeding the School Library publication….expressly noted that ‘Books containing racial, cultural or sexual stereotyping’ should be weeded as ‘misleading.'”
Librarians keep fraudulent progressive books in their libraries, while weeding out conservative books that take issue with them. Wikipedia notes that Michael Bellesiles’ anti-gun book Arming America “used fabricated research to argue that during the early period of US history, guns were uncommon during peacetime and that a culture of gun ownership did not arise until the mid-nineteenth century.” But that book was purchased by lots of libraries, where it remains. When conservatives contribute books by legal scholars taking issue with Bellesiles’ arguments, librarians weed out those books. As the lawyer Brett Bellmore recounts, “My own experience with a small town library, donating books, was that they were very determined to avoid viewpoint neutrality even if somebody was willing to pay for the books themselves. You could observe they only had books on one side of an issue, donate a book on the other side, and then find it in the next used book sale priced for pennies on the dollar. In this case the library had several books espousing the anti-gun position, including” Bellesiles’ “Arming America, (Well after it was exposed as a fraud.) and I donated hardcovers by some of the” law professors who blog at Reason‘s Volokh law blog “on the topic. Only, as I said, to find them in the next used book sale.”
Large numbers of library books have been removed and destroyed in the name of “equity and inclusion.” For example, progressive Canadian school systems have culled large numbers of books from their libraries in the name of “equity.” One student “estimates more than 50 per cent of her school’s library books are gone.” But progressive blowhards who wail about “book-banning” every time a sexually explicit book is moved from one section of a library to another section aimed at older readers are deafeningly silent about this.
The National Review reported:
A public school in Ontario has culled nearly half its books, one student estimates, following “a new equity-based book weeding process,” leaving students and community members deeply concerned as the new school year starts.
Among the classics removed from Erindale Secondary School in Peel District School Board include the Harry Potter series, The Diary of A Young Girl by Anne Frank, A Hungry Caterpillar, and The Hunger Games in a bid to make the library more inclusive.
Reina Takata, a Grade 10 student at Erindale, reflected upon returning to school: “This year, I came into my school library and there are rows and rows of empty shelves with absolutely no books.”….
Documents obtained by a local group, Libraries not Landfills, reveal that the mass removal of books was partly influenced by the “equitable curation cycle” created by [education bureaucrats]…“The Board shall evaluate books, media and all other resources currently in use for teaching and learning English, History and Social Sciences for the purpose of utilizing resources that are inclusive and culturally responsive, relevant and reflective of students, and the Board’s broader school communities,” one directive created following the district investigation commanded the school board.
Other files shared with the CBC reveal that the “equitable curation cycle” is composed of “a three-step process that holds Peel staff accountable for being critically conscious of how systems operate, so that we can dismantle inequities and foster practices that are culturally responsive and relevant.” One part of this process includes auditing existing books to ensure they “promote anti-racism, cultural responsiveness, and inclusivity.”
Books deemed not “inclusive” and thus “harmful” have been recycled (destroyed) rather than being sold or given away to members of the community who might like them. This seems little different from book-burning. The CBC reports:
Step two of curation is an anti-racist and inclusive audit, where quality is defined by “resources that promote anti-racism, cultural responsiveness and inclusivity.” And step three is a representation audit of how books and other resources reflect student diversity.
When it comes to disposing of the books that are weeded, the board documents say the resources are “causing harm,” either as a health hazard because of the condition of the book or because “they are not inclusive, culturally responsive, relevant or accurate.”
For those reasons, the documents say the books cannot be donated, as “they are not suitable for any learners.”
A PDSB spokesperson said the board supports its schools “in the disposal of books in a responsible manner by following Peel Region’s recycling guidelines.” Peel Region allows for the recycling of book paper, as long as hard covers and any other plastics are removed first and put in the garbage.
The requirement for books to promote “anti-racism” could lead to books being discarded simply because they do not peddle left-wing ideology. In practice, “Anti-racism” means left-wing ideology, including opposition to capitalism and support for racial preferences. “To love capitalism is to end up loving racism. To love racism is to end up loving capitalism…Capitalism is essentially racist; racism is essentially capitalist,” says the best-selling “anti-racist” book How to Be An Antiracist. That book is a “comprehensive introduction to critical race theory,” gushes the leading progressive media organ Slate.
The “key concept” in the book How to Be an Antiracist is that discrimination against whites is the only way to achieve equality: “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination,” wrote Ibram Kendi in that book. Kendi is a leading “critical race theorist,” according to the leading progressive publication Slate.
Yet, The Weeding Handbook, published by the American Library Association, approvingly cited a librarian who said, “Librarians who claim to be antiracist need to remove these books,” in justifying why she was discarding old Dr. Seuss books.
