How do public libraries select the wrong books for kids?

How ideological incentives throughout the publishing ecosystem shape library collections.

Libraries across North America have recently been under fire from parents and authorities concerned that their collections of children’s and young adult books contain material that is sexually graphic. In many cases, the books in question are perceived as part of a progressive agenda that pushes the young to question their sexuality and gender identity. Books introducing gender and sexuality viewpoints to very young audiences have become alarmingly common in libraries. While only a minority veer into graphic sexual territory, together they raise community concern about age-appropriateness.

For the libraries in question, the defensive position is one that invokes intellectual freedom. Outside forces should not limit or direct the content of library collections—that is the purview of professional librarians, who choose material in accordance with carefully considered criteria with the goal of serving the needs of their users and communities. This argument is invoked with particular fervor when it comes to books that express the viewpoint of “marginalized” groups, because these are the groups deemed most vulnerable to censorship. The stated goal is a wide variety of viewpoints, including viewpoints that are potentially not aligned with majority opinion. But how did we get to the point where the professional selection process, seeking to include a wide variety of (often unpopular) opinions, actively collects books that promote a progressive ideology to such an extreme that graphically sexual material is allowed for young people. Has indoctrination of the vulnerable become the norm?

First, let me make clear that in many, if not most public libraries, the actual selection of books by staff librarians is limited. In the past, librarians may have spent hours perusing catalogues and review journals, and in some cases attending publishers’ showcases. Today, public libraries often do not have the resources for that level of labor-intensive work. The number of books published in a given year, thanks to electronic and self-publishing, has grown too large, and library budgets are increasingly stretched.

Instead, many public libraries rely on their suppliers to do part or all of the work. A small number of library wholesalers are in the business of supplying libraries with pre-selected books and providing them shelf-ready, with catalogue records, spine labels, and security tags included. These wholesalers select materials based on profiles that the library supplies, which detail community demographics, interests, genres, copies-to-waitlist ratios, and other criteria. Typically, a local librarian will examine the shipments before acceptance, modify the profile as needed, and supplement these “automatic release plans” with backlist orders, customer request items, specialized books, local history, and anything else that the plan doesn’t cover. The profiles in question often contain a reference to “diversity” with specified targets of books written by or about particular minority groups. In practice, the books that meet these criteria are inevitably skewed toward the progressive viewpoint within these minorities.

But the libraries and wholesalers are only one part of the selection ecosystem. The other players are the publishers themselves, eager to satisfy their progressive impulses, who trip over themselves to sign “minority voices”; and the professional book reviewers and journals, who also are eager to support identity-based causes. This favoritism—born out of an effort to support unheard voices—creates a new silence for stories and others that fall outside of target groups. Wholesalers base their decisions on major publishers’ offerings and positive reviews in library and literature journals. The resulting pipeline leading to library acquisition is ideologically skewed, and deviating from it would take some effort, even if local libraries were not ideologically captured themselves.

Even if these elements are not always aligned, the process still results in library collections being stacked with books for kids on gender and sexuality that skew heavily toward a one-sided viewpoint. These views, presented as fact to an audience not yet capable of critical analysis, are in some cases accompanied by descriptions and illustrations of a sexually explicit nature, compounding the age-inappropriateness of the works. All the actors consider “queer inclusion” to be part of their mandate, not a political stance, and even where skepticism exists, it often succumbs to self-preservation.

Opponents of gender ideology in kids’ books will often call it “grooming.” This is hyperbole; it’s more akin to propaganda, the presentation of a contested ideology as fact in an environment that is intended to be neutral and non-political. Prospects for reform make for some difficult choices. Governmental oversight, community review, and parental permission regimes all present their own challenges to the independence and effectiveness of public libraries. Somehow, we have to find a way to take social-justice ideology out of the decisions at all levels.

To combat some of this skewing and keep libraries neutral and reading options open, readers should request books—most libraries have a purchase request option online. Librarians should try to operate with more autonomy and critically evaluate what publishers are putting out even when it sacrifices some efficiency. As individuals, we should prioritize the value of experiencing a range of literary topics and viewpoints, allowing us to expand our horizons and keep us open to a wide variety of experiences.

---

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 Fair For All or its employees.

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

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