All Is Not Quiet In the Library Catalogs

Navigating the changing landscape of library cataloging

This article was written by an author who wishes to remain anonymous.

Imagine you are searching for a book in your local library’s online catalog. What do you expect to see in the record for the book? Factual information, I presume: the author’s name, the title of the work, the  publisher, some information about the book’s topic, and where you could find it on the library’s  shelves. Would you appreciate knowing what the cataloger who created the record thought of the book?  Would you be surprised to read a content warning, something like “This book may contain material that  is harmful, offensive, or insensitive to [X] community?” What about seeing the value judgment “transphobic works” listed as the genre of the book? Next time you search your library’s catalog, pay  attention, you might see some disturbing changes taking place. 

Most people don’t think too much about cataloging. Catalogers are generally quiet and unassuming  people, working back-stage, away from the controversial lives of librarians. I am a  cataloger in a large library in a North American city, and I was happy with my quiet and stress-free job. I don’t have to choose the books the library purchases, I don’t deal with irate patrons, I work at my own  pace and I get first dibs on the books that come across my desk—what’s not to love? Except that,  recently, the controversies of the rest of the library world have finally reached the cataloging corner. In the last several months there have been multiple heated discussions on the cataloging forum that I subscribe to, and I was dismayed to read what my colleagues thought was to be promoted and encouraged. 

Traditional cataloging practice requires the cataloger to describe the book as objectively as possible; there are even specific guidelines reminding catalogers not to select subject headings (those  hyperlinked topic descriptors in the record) based on their own values and beliefs. One of the first  questions I was asked in my hiring interview was to confirm that I would agree to catalog materials that I, personally, found offensive. After all, libraries—and, by extension, catalogers—are supposed to be guardians of free speech and intellectual freedom. We do not know who will be looking for the  materials and for what purpose, and so we have to be fair, accurate, and objective in order to make it  easier for the material to be found. But it seems that now the overriding duty of the cataloger is to  protect the patrons from the harm that the records (not even the materials!) may cause them.  

In the discussions I mentioned above, fellow catalogers were unabashedly stating that certain  marginalized groups should get to decide how a book should be labeled. If a cataloger who is a  member of a marginalized social group believes the book in question is harmful or offensive, he is fully in the right to add a note in the catalog stating his beliefs. Thus we now have four books in the international catalog (used by libraries worldwide) with the label “Transphobic works”. Several books that are critical of the current gender affirmation care model now have the subject heading “Transphobia”. These books are not about transphobia, so the subject heading is likely being used as a way to warn the reader of the record (and potentially the librarian choosing which books to order for the library) that these are “bad books” and should not be read or purchased.  

Others in the forum did not seem to convince this group of catalogers when they pointed out that not all members of a marginalized group think the same way, that there are some marginalized groups that have conflicting  goals and vocabularies (“gender-critical feminist” versus “trans-exclusionary radical feminist”, for  example), or that if this sort of value judgment is permitted then catalogs will become embroiled in editing wars. To them, the unspecified harm that would result from a catalog record that does not warn the reader that the book described is “bad” or “unsafe” is worse than all that, worse even than the loss  of trust that will inevitably occur when patrons realize their books are being labeled with prejudice.  

There are still some of us who push back, that cling to the belief—not at all controversial only a short  while ago—that readers can be trusted to make up their own minds about the books they choose to read, that library workers should care for all the members of their community, including the ones they may disagree with, that the best way to effect positive change in the world is to promote intellectual freedom and the vigorous exchange of ideas. 

We’re still here, but I don’t know how much longer we will last.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy. 

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.