Libraries must be curated, not culled with abandon

Open this photo in gallery:

School libraries have finite resources, including space, and will never be able to include every book that was ever published – nor every book that was once offered by that individual library.

Collections are weeded not just to make space though – updates are needed when books are beyond repair, but also for textual accuracy and appropriateness. That includes the removal of books that present stereotypes and outdated ideas and language.

As parents and members of a society that will rely on the little learners using these libraries to become our future leaders (and educators), we put faith in the system that good decisions are made as collections are built and edited.

And then we hear about something like what has gone down at the Peel District School Board.

A group of parents, teachers and school staff says it appears the PDSB asked school librarians to remove books published before 2008. The motivation was an assessment of the books through an equity lens.

The key word here might be “assessment.” Who is doing the assessing and using what criteria? One would hope that someone who has anything to do with educating children would understand that Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl – which the CBC reported was among the books removed – does not present an equity issue. Or that The Very Hungry Caterpillar – another book the CBC reported was tossed – is not a threat to a child’s potential as a diversity, equity and inclusion-affirming citizen. And knows that kids might get hooked on reading through the Harry Potter series, whatever one thinks of the author’s stance on trans issues.

A lot of books published before 2008 were written by somewhat problematic authors. I give you Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and every other book by Roald Dahl (notorious antisemite). But that doesn’t mean kids shouldn’t be reading them.

The wealth of books written more than 15 years ago cannot be overstated. Anne of Green Gables, The Handmaid’s Tale, Maus, The Lightning Thief, Holes. Little Women! Toni Morrison’s Beloved. Joy Kogawa’s Obasan. A whole bunch of Sesame Street books.

Even if – and I’m being generous here, because this has been going on at Peel for months – the books were removed in order to be assessed, one would hope that the educators involved in this process would understand instinctively that books such as those listed above do not represent a threat to equity or education, but rather the opposite. No assessment or pre-emptive removal required. Just a brain.

Even if, as the CBC’s reporting stated, the policy was enacted in response to a provincial government directive around equity, who looks at The Diary of Anne Frank and thinks it might be a problem?

Marsha Lederman: Florida’s book ban takes censorship to the next level

In a statement released in response to the uproar, Peel’s Director of Education stated that school librarians were not in fact given a directive to remove all books published before 2008. Nor were they following a specific directive from the province.

“The replenishment process significantly enhances the school libraries’ capacity to offer a more precise, inclusive, culturally relevant, and responsive collection of texts for students,” read the statement by Rashmi Swarup, who emphasized that both Anne Frank’s diary and the Harry Potter series remain in its collections.

Ms. Swarup said the board follows library weeding guidelines set by the Canadian School Libraries association, which direct teacher-librarians to keep books “with any publishing date that are accurate, relevant to the student population, inclusive, not harmful, and support the current curriculum from the Ministry of Education” [emphasis hers].

The CSL’s Collection Diversity Toolkit, which includes a “wheel of power/privilege,” notes that the weeding process – to remove worn-out items, those that have outdated or inaccurate information or no longer serve the learning needs or interests of students – should be “a planned, systematic and thoughtful activity.”

It does not sound like what happened at some Peel schools was a thoughtful edit, but rather an overreaching cull. Did someone go rogue? Were overworked teacher-librarians misinterpreting some policy? Where did this arbitrary date come from?

As of this writing, the PDSB has not answered my specific questions about this. So it is unclear how these decisions were made or carried out.

But I think it’s safe to say that at the very least, there’s incompetence somewhere.

In her statement, Ms. Swarup said the training process will be reviewed to ensure consistency across PDSB school libraries.

Whatever is going on at Peel, it sounds like people who lack insight and knowledge around book selection had the power to make or carry out decisions to that effect, at least in some libraries. Even if Peel’s left hand did not know what its right hand was doing (which is in and of itself a problem), whose hands were doing this? And how are the people attached to them in charge of educating anyone?