The problem of Holocaust denial literature in libraries - The Library Bill of Rights

Perhaps the most difficult dilemmas are faced by public libraries. Do they have an obligation to acquire Holocaust denial literature if there appears to be no demand for it in their communities? As government sponsored institutions, do they have First Amendment responsibilities that require them to represent this position in their collections regardless of lack of demand? If people use a public library to meet their personal information needs, do they have a right to expect that the information they find there will be as accurate as librarians can reasonably ensure is possible?

For most public libraries, answers to the first two questions would be negative, to the third affirmative. Hupp's study found that just under 14 percent of OCLC public libraries own any Holocaust denial materials (p. 167). Since many public libraries are not OCLC members, the percentage of all public libraries is likely to be much lower. This figure does not necessarily, of course, reflect either actual demand, or the judicious application of selection criteria, or the high moral principles of public librarians, or even self-censorship.

Baldwin (in this issue of Library Trends) is right to suppose that the interests of the community need to be taken into account when making selection decisions. Few would argue that large portions of a limited budget should be used to provide materials for which there seems to be no demand. But collections are fluid and dynamic things, and librarians have a professional responsibility to be not only reactive but proactive in their collection-building work. If they order only those materials for which there is a known or perceived demand, their collections will stagnate. They must remember that just because no one has ever requested a certain type of material does not mean no one is interested in it.

Although Baldwin says government is not obligated to provide citizens with reading material that espouses a particular viewpoint, he also cites legal decisions that require librarians to apply their policies equally and in a nondiscriminatory fashion. If this is the case, it follows that librarians must make a reasonable attempt to provide access to objectionable materials for patrons who request them. This argument does not require libraries to actually purchase Holocaust denial materials, but they surely must make the same attempts to locate the materials through interlibrary loan that they would make for less controversial items. While librarians must exercise their professional judgment when deciding which materials to purchase for their collections, they cannot be in the business of approving or rejecting interlibrary loan requests based on content. Baldwin does not suggest that librarians should do this, but it is the logical result of a stance that absolves them from their responsibility to provide access to all viewpoints.

Perhaps some of the problems associated with these controversial materials could be alleviated by the way they are cataloged and classified. The current Library of Congress subject headings commonly assigned to Holocaust denial materials are "Holocaust,Jewish (1939-1945)--Errors, inventions, etc." and "Anti-Semitism." Some would call this labeling, while others would applaud the attempt to distinguish such disreputable scholarship from more credible sources while still maintaining access. The Library of Congress Classification scheme assigns works on the Holocaust the number D804.3, while works denying the Holocaust are classified under D804.35. While this does not completely address the concerns of those who feel that an unmistakable distinction must be made between the two, it does serve the purpose of collocating both kinds of materials on the shelves while making a nominal distinction between them.