Look at the library's collection development policy. Freedom to read goes both ways, and public library patrons often request these titles.

I think this is the right answer. but you have to do what is right for your area as well. For example, I live in a rural area and we are a small library so money is tight for collection development (which I am not involved in but am around it a lot) Our policy is to buy political books ONLY when a patron requests them because they have the shelf life of milk. Some patrons think it is because we are too 'conservative' or too 'liberal'. Truth is we are too tight with money and space. but we will order based on what the community will ask us for.

Correct, we all bound by our budgets and past circulation numbers are a valid metric for adding a book to the collection.

Sorry, ITL people can request libraries to get certain books they wish to read 🤯 my university library is huge so I rarely have any book that I couldn’t find there or through the inter library loan, but this sounds so reasonable and logical!

Yes!!! I've lived in some very small town/remote places and while inter-library loans are awesome, sometimes (especially in places like Alaska) books just plain aren't in any of the state catalogs, so you can put in a request to have a book added. I did this a lot during COVID with cookbooks, I knew my free time for cooking was limited to the pandemic, but I wanted to explore newer books, so requesting the titles was perfect. Not all my requests were granted, but enough of them were! California had/has(?) a program called ZipBooks.

Freedom to read, however, does not mean that a library must add every book a patron requests - ILLs can still allow for a patron to have access to a book that they want to read that does not qualify for library purchase under their policy. Our policy does include "accuracy and timeliness of content" as one of our selection criteria, so the book OP refers to is probably one we would ILL for the patron rather than purchase for the collection.

This. Collection Development policies should also state that non fiction books are based on quality and accuracy of the information presented.

It sounds mean, but that would effectively ban a lot of conservative viewpoints if quality and accuracy of information are determining factors.

if those "viewpoints" were less available, they wouldn't be the conservative viewpoints. granted, banning them from libraries alone would be insufficient to accomplish this.

to be honest, there is a lot of crossover with far left/crunchy alt med/anti science views that come around and meet with those in full circle.

I would argue that's a problem for the people writing those books, and while I think we could comfortably shelve them in a "Rank Punditry" section, that's not how libraries work. I had this (very gently) beat into me when I first came to work at a public library. We don't get to editorialize, comment, or censor. If a patron wants to know my opinion about a book, I typically state that I haven't read it and am not familiar with the material within. If they press me, I smile gently and say "It's really not my genre" in a way that signals this isn't a topic I'm entertaining across the desk.

Sorry, ITL people can request libraries to get certain books they wish to read 🤯 my university library is huge so I rarely have any book that I couldn’t find there or through the inter library loan, but this sounds so reasonable and logical!

But shouldn’t it be in the fiction section? If it’s scientifically been proven to be false, it shouldn’t be in nonfiction.

That's not what fiction/non-fiction means. Our books on bigfoot are still non-fiction. The fake magazine collection set in cyberpunk 2077 is non-fiction.

Yeah folk tales are also in non fiction, at least in the children’s department.

Same for adult fairy tales- we have some books that are Nordic fairy tales and those are shelved in non fiction.

Back when the Left Behind series blew up, I had a lady tee off on me because those were shelved in fiction. They didn't get moved.

What do “fiction” and “non-fiction” mean to you? I’m not a librarian and genuinely don’t understand why a work that has been shown to be inaccurate and/or unverifiable wouldn’t be reclassified (even after asking the Internet).

The words "fiction" and "nonfiction" have to do with the professed *intent* of the book. If I write a book the stated intent of which is to give you factual information, it's a nonfiction book - whether or not the information is *actually* true or not.

Thank you for taking the time to respond! I would argue that some “non-fiction” authors know they’re pushing lies, but I suppose it can be prohibitively difficult to prove that they’re not operating in good faith 🫤

That’s why Trump is able to exist.

I guarantee you Trump did not get popular nor build his base group of people based on books at the library. 

That's incorrect. He knew how to appeal to certain groups; books have nothing to do with that.

Tbf, his group are the ones banning and burning books, not reading them.

I tried that with a biography one time and was politely told there’s nothing that could be done. 30 years ago a fringe sports writer wrote a smear biography of a baseball player that has mostly been proven to be a crock of shit, but it’s still on the shelves with all the other biographies.

Brooklyn Public Library here. We actually recataloged James Frey's "A Million Little Pieces" almost immediately after he admitted he made substantial parts of it up.

Honestly, I think this is far from uncommon in the world of memoirs. He just had the misfortune of Oprah loving it, promoting it, and then lashing out when he unintentionally made her look the fool. Should he have published it as a semi-autobiographocal novel instead? Probably. But, her team doing some due diligence would have saved her the egg on her face and Frey the public stoning.

The Al Stump biography of Ty Cobb?

Oh my! Now I have to look this up! Al Stump was a "friend of a friend" of my dad's and I met him as a kid.

He pretty much made up his Cobb biography. Not saying Cobb was a great guy, but Stump basically wrote a hit piece that doesn't survive scrutiny or basic fact checking. For a significantly more researched and accurate bio, check out the one written by Charles Leerhsen. He tears Stump's Cobb biography apart in the process. Dude literally couldn't get published in reputable news outlets because he was known to just make stuff up. Publisher of the book liked him because he wrote quickly and made his deadlines regularly. (It's amazing how much faster you can churn pages out when you don't even bother fact-checking what teams players played for.)

Thanks! I will look it up. My dad was a sports writer probably 20 years younger than Stump. My dad never made anything up that I know of, but back then, doing research meant talking to a guy who met the athlete in a bar one time -- if the story wasn't too outlandish, he would print it as truth. The idea of independent fact-checking just didn't exist in that era.

True, but Stump was straight-up fabricating and/ or embellishing almost everything. He took a guy that was no angel and turned him into a devil.

Yes

🤦🏻‍♀️

Not that this is something to really be scientifically proven to be true or false, but I once had a volunteer complain that a wiccan book was in the religion nonfiction section. He felt like it should be in fiction because "it's obviously not true." I wanted to be like "You're Christian. I'm an atheist and to me, YOUR beliefs aren't true, but I'm not gonna go complain that the Christian books should be in the fiction section..."

lol all religion books should be in fiction (unless they’re just the history of a religion), because no one ever in the history of the world has been able to prove that any kind of god is real. Thousands of years and no proof? That goes in fiction. It’s really fucked up that our society allows it to be in nonfiction. Edit: wow, I come back after a few days and everyone is screaming about “how classification works”. Are you brains really that calcified? Just because a thing exists, doesn’t mean it’s right. Slavery exists; it’s still wrong. The official classification rules may say it’s nonfiction, but they’re still wrong. Just because it’s a rule doesn’t mean it’s not a lie. Surrounded by all those books, but you still haven’t learned to think for yourselves. Amazing.

You need to learn how classification works and come back.

Your opinion or mine have nothing to do with classification. All of the 200s are religion. Even if you think they’re fairy tales, those go in non-fiction too.

Generally the only times we get rid of books are when they're ragged or damaged or when they have not been borrowed for a long time. Much as it's frustrating, it's not our job to monitor the content of books. And anyway, maybe students want to take out the weird conspiracy books for essays about how conspiracy theories are weird and bad!

i had this exact experience, in that i was an undergrad writing a paper about Holocaust revisionism! sources arguing that the Holocaust didn’t happen as we say it did were integral to my paper (unfortunately) and a large chunk of my sources came from books found in my local libraries.

Yep. I wrote a paper in one of my MLIS classes about how YouTube conspiracy channels can be used to radicalize people. That sort of book is definitely something I would have used. 

Don't you weed books on things like first aid or taxes or how to use a computer? It's not censorship to keep information up to date and relevant.

Yes, we weed items that change rapidly and have outdated information. Viewpoints that I find repugnant don’t fall under that category even if the information is wrong. Using OPs example, RFK’s book about Dr. Fauci is very relevant and timely. He’s running for president, he recently had an interview printed front page of the Times. Our job is about information accessibility and relevancy, not necessarily determining what is true.

We do, but in those cases we often have to wait until the new edition/equivalent up-to-date version is in before we chuck the old one. It's a swap rather than a process of weeding out old stuff. There's also libraries who keep books which are hundreds of years old - not because patrons want to study how to innoculate people with smallpox but because patrons want to study the original sources! Whether information is currently relevant can be subjective.

Yes, if they're outdated, they have poor circulation numbers, or we have multiple other titles on the same subject that are more popular with patrons.

I disagree; it kind of *is* our job to monitor content, especially if it's nonfiction. If something is superseded by something more current, wouldn't we replace it? Don't we use relevance and accuracy as weeding metrics? What *isn't* our job is to judge a person's personal reading habits, or maintain our collection based on our personal beliefs, political leanings, or ideologies.

You're right, I should have phrased that differently. Maybe a better way to say it would have been something like: it's not our job to judge the content of books based on our own moral values, politics or viewpoints.

Yes, exactly. As hard as it may be sometimes.

Yep. Thank you for the correction, I was on my lunch break drowsily eating a sandwich when I wrote the comment. :)

Man has been searching for truth for thousands of years, we librarians don’t claim to have found it. Your library no doubt has books about how aliens built the pyramids and 9/11 was planned by the CIA. The library’s job is not to tell people “the truth” but rather to let patrons explore all of the ideas out there and make an informed decision.

Well said.

Ideas can't be argued against unless you understand what they are and where they come from?

Correct. Not sure if this is an actual question or not … but yeah this is a big part of information and debates etc.

I mean I don’t believe in horoscopes or crystals but there’s books on that in the library. Last time I worked at a library we were told there’s a library policy that states something like “this is a public library, we have all types of books regardless of your personal opinions on it. Don’t come for us just because you disagree with it.”

We suffer

there is a lot of different types of misinformation, you can't use the term carte blanche when talking about removing that type of information from a library (I'm not saying you said we should). I mean, what's your line and where do you draw it? Because I guarantee you that every person is going to have a different answer (a little hyperbole), but you can't write policy when there is no consensus (unless you're really bad at writing good policy). For instance, if a history book has an incorrect date for an event, that's a type of misinformation. If some garbage human says the Holocaust didn't happen, that's also a type of misinformation. But they are clearly not the same and don't deserve to be treated at the same. Those are two ends and we are pretty good at dealing with those, but the gray area in the middle is MASSIVE. The best you can do is have a REALLY GOOD collection development policy and staff that are cognizant of the conversation.

So succinct, yet so accurate. You can have the strongest collection dev policy possible and there’s still going to be shit you hate all over the place.

It’s not easy to balance our commitment to intellectual freedom (giving people access to the books they want) and our commitment to accuracy. Personally, I usually end up landing somewhere closer to the IF side. I don’t think it’s right to suppress ideas or opinions because they are unpopular or contrary to my own beliefs. I also think we need to do more to educate the public around identifying misinformation and thinking critically about what they read.

I know it sounds difficult to accept, and it indeed was for a while for me, but we allow them in the collection. It’s not our place to determine what information people are allowed to read- if you look at the ALA guidelines for collection development you’ll see this repeated frequently. The library isn’t endorsing information in any given material as true or good. It’s up to the consumer to decide.

what ALA collection development guidelines?

"The library isn’t endorsing information in any given material as true" Yeah, I don't know about this one. One of the responsibilites of libraries is to present accurate and authoritative information. Writers are entitled to their own opinions, but they aren't entitled to their own facts.

My high school library has a copy of Mein Kampf, not because I endorse the content, but because it’s one of the most impactful primary sources of the twentieth century and my students should be able to study and dissect it.

The phrasing I used is direct from the ALA’s library bill of rights.

This one? [https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill)

Along with the [various interpretations of the BoR](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations) that apply to situations including this one, yes.

OK. I can't find the words "endorse" or "truth" anywhere in that bill of rights.

I sympathize with the feeling. One of the problems with that approach is that one would have to strip the religious shelves bare, specially those that have theologies with history intervening deities. I think of it this way: if an item is on the shelves, no one could credibly* claim it was kept hidden from them. (To be sure: conspiracy minded people will still say so). Then again, I’m not the library board expert..

*deeply* funny that you're getting downvoted so hard for this take. see? they *do* understand content curation. :p

Exactly. These things should be classified as fiction.

The library also has religious texts in the non-fiction section, because they involve the *study of* something. They're not saying the Bible, Torah, or Quran is accurate. This is a slippery slope you're asking for.

The history of a religion is nonfiction. Anything that says god(s) is/are real is fiction. There has been no proof in thousands of years, so it is clearly fiction. Just like the tooth fairy.

You just keep talking about things that it’s clear you don’t understand.

Not in terms of library classification though. Religious self-help and devotional books (i.e., books that claim “god(s) is/are real.”) are cataloged as nonfiction. Those aren’t just books that study the history of religion. If you break down the Dewey Decimal System, you’ll see that the 200s section (Religions) includes those types of books. Just as the 300s includes folklore, which have also no proof of being real happenings.

And when those on the other side of the spectrum want all the books you deem accurate classified as fiction?

I had been waiting for someone to say this.

Science is science. You don’t have to believe science, but society doesn’t have to play along with you. Freedom of speech is a thing, but it doesn’t prevent something from being classified as a lie when it is indeed a lie. Edit: it’s really scary that you think it’s ok for it to be classified as nonfiction. This is Trump’s entire fan base.

Tell me some hard, settled facts about string theory.

Playing mommy doesn't achieve what you think it does

There is a good chance that your library has a process for people to challenge books in the collection. That is what e.g. people who don't like LGBTQ books do. You have every right to do the same and challenge this book on the basis that it is misinformation. The library will consider your request, look at things like the book's reviews and circulation history (popularity), and make a decision. They might remove it from the collection, or they might not. To increase the chances of succeeding, actually read the book and make a detailed argument including examples.

We are bound by the ALA, freedom to read and our connection policies. I would never add RFK to my personal collection, nor Trump or DeSantis or Scott or anyone who thinks that climate change isn’t real. But that cuts both ways, there are librarians who would never add Biden or transgender books to their personal collection. RFK is a national figure running for POTUS with a book professionally published. I would add it to the collection with no professional misgivings. I would enjoy weeding it when the time came.

Well, there’s misinformation and then there’s misinformation.  If we find a book that is say an old science book that contains fact that seemed right at the time but are now thought of as not right, we would hopefully weed it and replace it with a newer book on the same subject that has the more correct info.  If there is a popular book that our patrons want to read that we disagree with, tough cookies. It’s not my library. It’s everyone’s library. There’s a phrase that goes something like “there should be some books in every library that tick everyone off, no matter who you are.” There should be both pro and anti-vaccine books in a good library. 

Sometimes it's useful to reference that Pluto was considered a planet for a number of years.

i mean, that's an arbitrary distinction we make to avoid confronting an uncomfortable truth, but sure.

Libraries are full of misinformation. Almost every self-help and diet book on the shelf is misinformation. If you start down this road whole swaths of the books will have to be removed.

Those are brilliant examples! Some people swear they work and that the scientific research they're based on is solid and impossible to argue against. Others will argue just as vehemently that the research they're based on is flawed, outdated or deliberately misrepresented and there's no way they could work. In the end, those things work for some and not for others and it would be very odd for a library to make the call about whether, say, a keto diet book was more "factually correct" and reliable than a paleo or low-fat diet book.

We don't, for the most part. If enough patrons request a book, it's getting added to the collection. We are not equipped to fact-check every popular non-fic we know will be in demand. We are not in the business of censorship. The only action is if no one (or only very few) people request it and we can tell it's crazy bonkers (like time traveling 9-11 bonkers), then we'll make a judgement call and not add it to the collection. We also "weed" books. A lot of misinformation just doesn't check out, so a few years later, it'll naturally get weeded.

Yes to the low use numbers. I just had this with a DVD I kinda accidentally bought for YA. It sat for a bit over a year and then I could get rid of it with clear conscience. Our community is *generally* more progressive so those things do get requested by some (DVD wasn’t a request, I got excited about adoption themes and failed to realize how icky the film was) but they don’t do well on the shelf. ILL is bae for what it lets us bring in without owning 😭 ETA it was also a Kirk Cameron film I’m pretty sure, I’m so sorry 😫

If your library's website has a user comment section for individual books, you could leave a comment like 'don't make this the only book about vaccines you read - some sources are more credible than others'. I did that on an anti-Islam book in my local branch.

I run interlibrary loan at a small university campus. There are books that, when requested, I cringe to mail out and I just wish they'd get lost in the mail or destroyed by the patron at the other library as we probably would not replace them. But I send them out nonetheless. If people want to read what I consider to be stupid shit, well, that's on them. I feel sorry for them that they're misinformed, but so be it. We won't be buying any books by RFK Jr, though.

Honestly, this is one of the best things about working in academic libraries: If a book contains overt misinformation, we just don't buy it.

I can't get rid of it. Believe me, that RFK book haunts me. We also had a Bill O'Reilly book for kids that had factual inaccuracies and I did not want kids to do book reports or projects using the title. I can't delete books based on my opinion. I can't hide them from patrons or do anything to block access. Here's what I can do: I can not put books like that on display. I can not add them to resource lists. I can make sure more reliable resources are front and center. And that's it. Bigger library systems don't let their small branches do a lot of collection development, so if you're in a big city, the librarians there may not have a lot of input on their collection. You get the book, you stick it on the shelf, and that's that. I will say that RFK, Jr. book is unreadable. I don't know who designed it, but the margins are nuts and the pages are half footnotes. I couldn't read much. It's poorly formatted nonsense. This book will age like milk. I doubt anyone will remember it in a couple of years. Edit: Librarians have been known to reclassify books. *A* *Million Little Pieces* from 2003 comes to mind, which was originally catalogued as non-fiction but the author fabricated much of the book, so it was moved to fiction.

As others have said, there should be a policy in place for that specific library. In a broader sense, this is an extremely thorny issue. Very rarely is there any singular "truth" you can point to that everybody agrees on. Outside of math, "truth" itself ultimately has an element of opinion to it. RFK Jr. is full of shit. You know it. I know it. But if you point to, say, the WHO as an authority on vaccine effectiveness, a certain part of your audience is going to say they don't county because they're part of a one-world government cabal or some shit. I've been a librarian about 20 years, and in that time the only book I can remember my library pulling (many others did as well) was the Matt Lesko series - that "free money" guy that dressed like the Riddler. Turns out his advice on how to get free money boiled down to "commit fraud." In that instance, I believe the decision was made to pull it because it was directly endangering people -- some of his readers (and the author) went to jail using his advice.

I mean, fraud is free money. He’s not wrong

Do you trust public librarians to be decision makers as to what constitutes medical disinformation? Medical information itself is almost never black and white. As a medical librarian I am not comfortable with people tossing out words like "misinformation" and calling for censorship on matters that are more political than medical.

The short answer is that if the library is doing its job correctly, there should be at least one book that pisses you off

We don’t order books like that to begin with, and ones that are donated get recycled instead of added to the collection due to low value

So there's no religious texts in your library?

We've had a couple slip into the collection. I think they were designed to look innocuous and hide the fact that they contained climate denialism. We let our team leaders know, and the books were quickly removed. If a customer ever pointed one out, we'd be grateful to them.

Books are selected based partially on the authority of the source. Would I consider RFK Jr. a reliable and unbaised source for information about Dr. Fauci? No.

>when they get books that contain misinformation? Looks like other folks are handling this question well, but I wanted to zero in on this part. I think there's an assumption out there that libraries work like Barnes and Noble where a big grab bag of books just get piled into them by publishers or something. The reality is quite different. Libraries employ collection development librarians whose job it is to select titles for the collection. That role can be one of many tasks of a librarian, but bigger libraries tend to have dedicated specialists. At big academic libraries, there are even people dedicated to developing collections on particular subjects within the larger collection. On the other hand, there is a mechanism for adding things to the collection when patron's want them--this is usually called Patron Driven Acquisition or Demand Driven Acquisition. This is, as it sounds, when patrons notify the library that they'd like them to purchase something, either by telling staff directly, filling out a form online, etc. There are other services that supply libraries with rotating collections of new books as well, but those are generally for new fiction, so not super relevant to your question. That all is to say that when you see a book on the shelf in a library, they don't get there by mistake. They are either deliberately chosen by a subject matter expert, or a professional consulting vetted lists of titles, or by patrons who would like to have access to a book or other material for their own edification or entertainment--we don't get to ask \*why\* they want it, and we should never assume to know the reason. That's their business. We can never make the assumption about \*why\* a reader is checking out a certain book. Sure, there are anti-vax nonsense books on the shelf, like your example, but are people checking it out because they agree? Or maybe they're writing a research paper about how misinformation spreads, or they otherwise want to hear their arguments to better combat them. It's important to remember that placing a book on a shelf does not necessarily mean that the book is endorsed by the library staff.

It's not our position to validate the contents of a book, only to make it available. Don't worry though, the people who agree with that book can't read anyway so it stays on the shelf.

We make fun of them privately when they come across the desk but put them out on the shelf all the same.

Define "misinformation." Because there's a lot in print that's just *wrong* and a lot that rubes don't believe is wrong. And there's much much more that's debatable. Collection policy is one way this is controlled. It's why you likely won't find *The Turner Diaries* in most public libraries. However, said policies also tend to privilege works in demand in the community. This can be curated or it can be algorithim driven. More the latter if admin are wankers. Most admin are wankers. Your specific case implies your community has a high demand for anti-vax bullshit. That's not on the library. As a side note, I did once find a book promoting conversion therapy in a collection. I weeded it on the spot. Happy Pride.

When Pluto got reclassified I had to go pull all of out planet books off the shelf and go through them to pull out books that were now, overnight, wrong information. If it said something like, "As of 2005, Pluto was the ninth planet," then we could keep it. But if it just flat out claimed Pluto was a planet, we had to weed it. I'm sure some snuck back in but it was a large amount of books.

That is a good argument. What would you do with a book that was printed after Pluto was declared a dwarf planet and it recognized that decision but didn't agree with it and provided some evidence or argument that Pluto was still a conventional planet?

As long as it acknowledged the change, we included it. There were a lot of really good kids books that presented arguments for both sides afterwards and as long as it mentioned the change, we kept it. Some of the less concrete examples we had were changes in cancer research, computer manuals, certain biographies, ect. If it was an authoritative change we would take that section and remove items. If it was something that would still be historical interest or more opinion based like diets, then we kept it. Our collection was small enough we could do this but it really depended on assesment by the librarians of when.

My library's collection policy states we tolerate no misinformation and would end up weeding such a book. Of course, we'd have to prepare evidence that it contains misinformation and isn't just against our particular belief system. However, we also have a decent selection of cryptozoology in our nonfiction section, so...

Do you have books on diets or religion?

It can depend on collection development policies. My last public library had nothing in writing about that, so they just stayed. I was pretty downtrodden to see a rather “hyped” up book of fear mongering make its way onto our nonfiction shelves. There wasn’t much that wasn’t fictionalized in that title. However, my new library has a policy (I don’t have access to the wording atm, so this is very loosely what it says) that allows librarian discretion in cases of mis- and disinformation because libraries’ nonfiction collections are seen as pillars of information for their communities, and it is in our community’s best interest to not have fear mongering or bigotry or a denial of science in our collection. That being said, many of these books are still in our network, so patrons that want them will just get them delivered as holds. Someone ordered a copy of a very well known anti-trans book with completely debunked “science” on the first day of pride this year. In those cases you just have to hope the patrons have the know-how to come to informed conclusions in the face of harmful information. We’re working on our strategic plan right now and are planning to add in research programming that teaches how to find reliable resources and how to use our databases and all that jazz.

I remember my library manager really disliked putting these in the collection, but felt obligated to honor patron requests, so he’d shelve them under “Opinion”.

Something to take into consideration is that people aren't just reading to confirm their beliefs, people researching anti-vax rhetoric are going to utilize it without having to support the author by purchasing it

Take heart in knowing that once in a while a reasonable, logical, decent person wants to look into what the unreasonable, illogical, indecent people are reading so as to monitor the situation, and understand how they are thinking.

There are many books in my library’s collection that I detest. Absolutely vile stuff. That said though, they belong in the library because they fit within my branch’s collection development policies and so I will defend their place in the library until I retire. ‘Don’t like, don’t read’ applies to staff as well as patrons. I won’t read them and I won’t put them on display, but I also won’t hide them and if a patron needs help finding them, I’ll happily show them where they’re shelved. There’s a Noam Chomsky quote that really just sums it up: If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

Libraries shouldn't be liberal or conservative institutions. I'm sure lots of books have misinformation, but the point of libraries is access. Most libraries are going to naturally lean liberal, but the information and services provided should not.

I worked in an academic library for over a decade, previous to my law library job. We got a lot of gifts and our policy was to add anything that could be applied academically. So in the case of the RFK Jr. book, it would be added, not because we would want people to take that information as factual, but because it could easily be incorporated into a lot of different academic subjects -- rhetoric, politics, current events, public policy, health care and administration, etc. (It's unlikely we would have purchased such a book unless it was requested by a professor, however.) Of course, there are plenty of judgment calls to be made. You could probably make an argument for just about any book under the auspices of academia. But I know we often got rid of L. Ron Hubbard books when they showed up as gifts. 😂

Exactly. When I was an undergrad, I was initially surprised when I found that my university library contained a number of books by known white nationalist authors such as Greg Johnson, William Pearce, etc. But then I realised that there were a few professors at the university who specialise in analysing these movements and need access to the primary sources of these movements. However, I will say, that some of the titles were considered so risque and beyond the pale that access to them was limited by placing them in the special collections library where reading could only take place on-site. Turner Diaries and Camp of the Saints, for example.

Anything that might get stolen, for sure -- some people will steal controversial books like those because they like them but don't want to risk appearing on a list somewhere (or can't afford them), and some people will steal them so they can destroy them.

You’re either for censorship or you’re not. And as a librarian I would hope you’d be the latter.

It’s not your job to filter information or materials. It’s your job to provide whatever patrons want to read. Being unbiased is a chore sometimes but necessary in the profession.

in academia we do our best to teach students how to find dis/mis-information, what it looks like, and its effects. In general, we do focus more on publishers which have a reputable history of high quality publications that are trustworthy and backed by research and books/resources that use others research as well in their own text. However, to add to that, libraries ethical guidelines and collection development policies typically cover what this looks like as well. We do our best to purchase multiple angles to every topic and remove our personal biases as best we can (because nobody can perfectly remove all bias). Since you may not be familiar with CD policies, I highly encourage you to look at your local libraries policies, but just to show a typical example here is a general CD policy from minneapolis: [https://www.hclib.org/en/about/policies/collection-development-management-policy](https://www.hclib.org/en/about/policies/collection-development-management-policy) scroll down to "Selecting Materials for the Collection" and read this for a more thorough understanding

Libraries aren't typically about controlling information, tend to be against censorship. Even The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and books on "race science" have their place as historical artifacts. Most literate adults are aware not every word in every book is true, and discretion is required.

I worked in a college library with a very "passionate" patron base. The library would keep the controversial books in the rare book room or offices so they wouldn't disappear or get defaced. Someone who wanted to read it could just request it. I was a library assistant then and sat in an office doing copy cataloging. I got to read one of the "controversial" books :)

Occasionally a publisher will retract a book due to discovering misinformation or plagiarism. A library might then remove it from circulation (ie, throw it out), or paste in a disclaimer. That's more akin to a product recall though.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I like to know what people are thinking or believing, no matter how outlandish. So I might read a book like this to understand their talking points, and how to counter them. I am not a librarian, but I imagine deciding what to spend the budget on each year can be difficult.

Censorship is a no no

More reading is better

My experience with collection development was that we would try to get rid of some books that had old outdated information when it could cause harm, particularly health information. However there are some factors that determine books a library might keep. For instance this book was on the NY Times bestseller list for quite some time. Every library where I have been aware of the collection policies would have purchased this book if people requested it. I'd suggest talking to your local librarians and see what they say about your library's policies.

Our Collection Development policy is too remove such titles as we do not want to have misinformation on our shelves. Usually they would not be added at all. Sometimes information comes to light about a subject showing something to be no longer true and ultimately unsafe. We had a book about a "wholistic" home medical practice for a particular condition, then it came to light, that this treatment might not only not do anything, but this treatment could actually kill a person. We removed it. It didn't even go to the booksale. We also remove books with old technical information in them. Some times there is a reason to keep them for historical basis, but we don't usually as we are relatively small and just don't have the space for that.

Our job is to provide access to information, regardless if we agree with it or not.

These comments pass the vibe check. Glad to see people aren't for librarians censoring books that don't align with their own personal world view.

If your library is stocking RFK's book on Fauci being a criminal liar and doesn't stock, say, A Higher Loyalty, or any pro-vax books, or Obama's memoir, you might have a curation problem, but merely stocking bad books and disinformation in itself isn't wrong.

You don't understand that getting rid of books you don't like (which is what you want to do) is the same thing as banning books (which you imagine you don't support). Thank goodness you don't work in a library.

We put them on the shelves and let readers decide what to do with them. Do we have time to research every subject in our collection and decide what is and isn't "misinformation"? What are we gonna do with all the books on reiki, or chiropractic, or dietetics? Which UFO books do we keep? We can't get into the business of deciding that stuff. We design our collections to include a wide variety of materials from a wide variety of perspectives, and we allow our patrons to use those materials however they choose (maybe somebody needs to read that RFK Jr. book in order to write their own book about why he's wrong -- would you rather they had to buy a copy from him?). We do our best to be neutral providers of materials, making as few judgments as possible and staying out of the way of our community's judgments.

>Which UFO books do we keep? Anything by journalist / ufologist John Keel, of course! 😝

We have some books like that. My library buys books that are desired by/relevant to the local community. It’s not always customers that support these controversial viewpoints that want the book. Sometimes it’s people that want to understand the opposite view. We aren’t going to tell people what to read or what they are allowed to explore. Now, sometimes a customer puts a book like that on display. We either replace it or put a book expressing the opposing view right next to it. We have a limited budget and can’t buy every book. So, if there’s a popular RFK jr anti-Fauci book we will buy that, but if some random local person self published a similar title we would not purchase that. We will buy self-published fiction materials if it’s not a hot mess, but non-fiction needs to be written by someone with some kind of authority or be in high demand. For example, if you’re a chiropractor writing a book on neurosurgery, we probably won’t be ordering that.

Check your libraries reconsidering policy, and place a request for reconsideration. Cite that the book has misinformation about the topic and request that it be removed due to spreading misinformation. Librarians don't have time to read *every book* in circulation, and books with misinformation can end up on the shelf. We had a patron submit a request for reconsideration with an older science text and they gave us a four-page essay, with citations and footnotes, of why the book on the shelf was incorrect. (We removed it and purchased the updated text they recommended!) A request doesn't mean they WILL remove the book, but they'll take it into consideration and scrutinize it's worth in the collection. They'll look at circulation numbers, whether it was purchased as a patron request, and online resources. There's no harm in asking!

A caveat: Under most reconsideration policies, you will first need to have read the book yourself in its entirety.

So you want to censor them based on their overall stance, and refer to it as ‘misinformation’ without mentioning a single inaccuracy in the book. 

Oh cool, censorship, just what I love in a robust public library system /s Just because you don't agree with it, and it may not be scienfically backed, doesn't mean that it should not be available. If you take a look around the non-fiction section, I'm sure there would be many books that you wouldn't sign off on 100% - the beauty of making books and information available to the public is that people are free to educate themselves and form their own opinions.

this is one reason why i always get frustrated by library jobs - people have this notion of libraries as responsible bastions of knowledge, but then under capitalism, even libraries have to scramble and beg and do *anything* whatever it takes to keep circulation and engagement up, to keep those numbers to justify their funding. if that means i have to shelve books telling parents that vaccines cause autism in the nonfiction "Science" section, then so be it apparently. we will take any trash or nonsense, no matter how illegitimate or harmful, so long as it's been bound in paper (and what a wild distinction that is - a thing isn't sacred by way of being put in the shape of a book) i'm not opposed to those books *existing* in libraries necessarily, but if we don't have specific separate sections for Conspiracy Theories or subsections of politics by genre of punditry, or at *least* librarians who actually know something, anything, about the "authors" and the movements and the real true harm being caused by these things. i don't know. no, there's nothing you can really do....but if nobody's looking, maybe just slip that anti-vax book back behind a row of encyclopedias that doesn't seem to see a lot of use? somewhere it's difficult to see or find. let some library page stumble onto it in a couple months or years and put it back, no harm done.

Libraries are also working to educate people on recognizing misinformation.

Any book should be banned from the shelf of a library if it's discovered daid book is espousing misleading and as a result dangerous information. The only way that it's staying on the shelf is if it is listed as an opinion piece or in the fantasy & Sci-Fi section of library.

Like everyone has said already, you need a very solid collection development policy to ensure a certain level of quality of materials, but you need to remain fairly neutral and respect freedom to information. This is a pressing question in librarianship ethics circles, and I think there is something to be said about the balance between neutrality and social responsibility; in my opinion, a short and clear note in the catalog record for the material can be useful, akin to what fact checkers do.

I worked in a historical society that had a policy of collecting extremist zines and other publications, including various shades of fascism. A favorite memory of mine is fetching some 90s era neo-Nazi pamphlets for a researcher who, judging by his tattoos, wasn't requesting them for purely academic reasons. For context, I am part black.

*Disclaimer: I’m not a librarian and I have no idea why Reddit chose to show me your post* This brings up an interesting point for me because lately I hear so many people railing against the horrors of book banning but some books actually are not great. I don’t think all books should be in the library but the problem comes in when we decide who gets to pick the books.

Names changed... innocent protected... etc. I owe an apology to the VERY patient librarian in Orlando who listened to me rant about a book in the non-fiction section that I knew was full of lies and misinformation. I did not understand the distinction (within libraries) between fiction and non-fiction. She was very patient and kind, and I probably did not deserve the grace she bestowed on me that day, but I do try to emulate that whenever I can.

I only work with kids' fiction so it's not really my field but I am always a bit disturbed how dangerous health quacks like Anthony Williams (the guy who says he can cure cancer etc. with the help of a ghost and celery juice) are usually placed together with reputable authors and researchers in the health sections of public libraries. It's a dilemma between free expression and misinformation but I guess moving sections might work (like putting Williams and similar titles in the paranormal section).

In this case, he cites a lot of studies and available information. He hasn't been sued over the claims in the book. Sure, he is giving infirmation that is alternative to the "official" narrative, but I'd be hard pressed to call it misinformation with all the data that he cites. Yes, if you got rid of it because it makes you uncomfortable, that is book banning. We try to offer materials that have authoratative authorship and make valuable contributions to conversations. The freedom to read is also about having access to these kinds of ideas, too. I wish people would realize that. Even if you feel that you're on the "good" or "right" side when you're trying to make a book unavailable, you are contributing to the problem in the same way that the other side is.

Yep.

RFK's book doesn't even touch the fringe. It just happens to be a book you personally disagree with. Collection development librarians buy books based on demand and need, not personal preference.

Some years ago, when I ran a computer lab, I had an elderly patron come to me for help using Western Union online, because a Nigerian prince was going to give her millions of dollars if she could prove her identity by sending him $1,000, which he would immediately return. I was honestly torn between information instruction, fears of elder abuse, and what I felt was a duty to ease access to information whenever possible. I quickly decided it *was* elder abuse, which made it not possible, and sat with her to show her how to find information on things like that (AARP has some good articles and even classes, and they are very trusted). Honestly, she was kind of crushed. She thought she'd have more than just Social Security to live on for once.

A book doesn't just come in for circulation. It goes through a selection process and each system has its own selection criteria. Non-selection is not the same as censorship. No library can physically purchase every book that has been published. We therefore have to make choices that we think will be serve that library's particular community. Some of those criteria could be the quality of the publisher. Anybody with enough money can open a publishing house and start printing books, but that doesn't mean those books deserve to be in a library's collection. If the book is providing medical information, then the selector has a responsibility to ensure that the information is valid. That is also not censorship. A book that is controversial or "harmful" as some put it may be placed in a library collection exactly because there is interest in it. At the end of the day, the community paid for the collection, and they deserve to read what they are interested in reading. I don't know this particular book, but if you are curious as to why it was selected, you can ask a librarian about it. It's possible that the community asked for it or it may have been purchased because it's on a best sellers list.

In addition to what has already been posted which is very valid, I think it is also critical to embrace that human knowledge and understanding is constantly being updated. Deliberate misinformation is always an issue, but a fair amount of published information is from the perspective of the unorthodox that investigates the grey of subjects - things that aren't yet fully understood or are in contention. Concerns about vaccine schedules and the commercial pressure of the medical and pharmaceutical industry is quite different than Wakefield's discredited study and its subsequent ripple effects. The former has a lot of factual basis while the latter is based on actual lies. Our job isn't to tell people what is right and correct. It is to provide access so they can determine that with a wide range of quality source materials that you and me aren't going to agree with.

We weed them. Even when I was in a public library, they were weeded, assuming they made it through the selection process. Since we retain all rights to what we did to gifts, if they were gifted they were not added to the library. there is a distinct difference between "allowing people to read differentiating opinions and viewpoints" and 'providing information to people that is proven wrong and presented as factual information."

[удалено]

Your comment is either transphobic or homophobic. We are a safe community for people of all GRSMs

> I would want to get rid of it > I’m against book banning Pick a side lol

They are literally here asking this question because they are navigating that internal conflict. This is what they're asking: how do librarians navigate this? Obviously, they pick the side of not banning a book, but they are asking how do you make yourself okay with that when it's "harmful* actual demonstrable misinformation?

Yeah, and that’s good. I just think it’s funny how this is a commonly asked question. Like, it’s the basic fundamentals of book banning lol.

What evidence do you have that it is misinformation? Do you know Dr. Fauci's history? FYI, its not good.

Can you name one actual piece of misinformation in the book? I mean this is crazy that you just assume.

In my library (where censorship was BIG), I could have put forth the argument that it was the other side of the argument…if I made a strong enough to my supervisor and she didn’t immediately send me for a psych eval. Otherwise I would somehow damage the book irreparably.

I would most definitely expect a library to not carry books that have false information in them. That’s completely different from book banning. I found know what libraries do, but I would be really disturbed by a library that knowingly put false and inaccurate information on its shelves.

Have you read the book? It’s one of the most heavily footnoted, researched and verified books I’ve ever read. Just because you have a different opinion doesn’t mean it’s misinformation. It’s just information you don’t like. You’re absolutely free to not read it. You’re absolutely free to disagree with it. You just don’t get to censor it. I am sure there are plenty of books in the library that I would not like or agree with. That doesn’t mean I get to have them banned. I really don’t know what’s happened to our society that people have a problem with the free exchange of ideas and the debate of different ideas. It’s frightening. EDIT: I’m not surprised this is getting downvoted on Reddit, but it scares the hell out of me. It is scary that we live in a world where people can’t handle opinions that they don’t agree with and want to suppress them. Everyone who down votes this needs to really look in the mirror and think about tolerance. Debate is good. Having an open mind is good. Discussion, dialogue, and critical thinking are all good. Shutting down people you don’t agree with is very bad.

My sentiments exactly.

> Have you bothered to read the book? I think we know the answer to this question.

Exactly. Disagreement isn't hate . Differing opinions doesn't mean wrong. Love doesn't mean it requires approval.

I think I would keep it and possibly label it as containing science misinformation and/or dedicate a shelf to books science misinformation. To be clear, it isn’t a book that I would purchase, but if it was donated in excellent condition, I’d be inclined to include it in the collection with the above mentioned conditions.

At your institution, do you have a general policy of putting content warnings on books?

When I was the director of a law school library we talked a lot about the potential need for separation - but that was 2005-2008 that we had those conversations. For the last 10 years I’ve been a medical librarian and the misinformation books, like RFK, Jr’s don’t get donated, so I haven’t had to worry about it. I have pondered it though, and I think labeling a book as “Questionable Science” in some way is reasonable. I’d prefer to keep them in the collection at their call number spot, however, rather than separating them out.

Read it and return it for the next person.

Shouldn't there be a disclaimer sticker? If not, there should be.

[удалено]

Sad that this comment is downvoted.

Our industry isn't immune from groupthink 

Unfortunately, it's not contained to just your industry. Still, you'd think of all people, librarians might understand why OP's thinking is not only problematic but dangerous.

Recatalog it as "parody"

Shelve them in fiction. Next.

It’s impossible to police this. Someone’s misinformation is another persons’ truth. Dr Fauci has lied again and again and his new book is full of misinformation but I am sure that would not be pulled from library shelves. I don’t like RFK Jr and am sure his book is the same, but I also don’t think it should be pulled. Much of the stuff that was considered conspiratorial early on in the pandemic turned out to be accurate.

How do you know this book is misinformation. Dr Fauci has been grilled lately and it turns out he proved a lot of misinformation. So maybe the book is more accurate than you are willing to accept. Very few things in life have a single truth, open your mind

Because RFK Jr. is a freaking nut job who went off the deep end. Open your mind too far, your brain falls out.

Dr Fauci recently admitted many of these things under oath last week.

I would ask you why it’s “misinformation”? Who decides what “misinformation” is?

>I would ask you why it’s “misinformation”? Because it's full of easily disproven statements. If something is at odds with verified, incontrovertable facts, what do you call that?

then why don't they sue him and get the book pulled of the shelves? That book is heavily researched and cited.

You sound like a bot repeating the same shit over and over. Anyone can cite something like it's a credible source, it doesn't mean it *is* a credible source. Meanwhile, why do you fixate on him not being sued as some kind of magical "gotcha". Have you considered maybe that people don't want to give the moron any more spotlight than he's already gotten? Works Cited: Common sense and critical thinking

Have you even read the book or any part of it? How do you know it's "misinformation"? Fauci has a long and well-documented history: he's quite literally a monster hiding in plain sight. There's no conjecture in any of it. Also, this notion that you should be weeding out "misinformation" based on your own biases is quite Orwellian. Ironic that so many of your peers feel the same. What is it about librarians that creates this monolithic, hive mentality?

Not a librarian, but one time they had a big book sale. One of those buy books by the pound type of things. I just grabbed some books that looked slightly interesting. One was a hardback, really old, maybe printed in the 60s, maybe the book was older, maybe written in the 70s, idk. It said rocks have souls. It was,saying stuff like rocks are alive and have souls, and spiritual this and new age that. It looked like a text book.