Canadian Librarian Fired For Arguing That Libraries Should Be Ideologically Neutral

Canada’s “Freedom to Read” week was all about promoting censorship. 

As Big Brother says, “Ignorance is Strength.”

It all began with a rather anodyne opinion piece written in a local paper by a librarian. She expressed the unthinkable: libraries should be ideologically neutral, using the principle of viewpoint diversity to stock their shelves. 

You can follow the links and read it for yourself. The “controversial” column is a rather timid call to promote free expression by including books from many viewpoints rather than enforcing a narrow progressive orthodoxy on libraries. By firing her, the board has proved her point https://t.co/IOHmpbAfWV

— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) March 21, 2024

This is, apparently, contrary to the values of her library board, and she was fired.

The library insists that they respect Cathy Simpson’s right to think what she wants, as long as she doesn’t express it. 

The column prompted the library board to suspend Simpson on March 8, not long after she returned from vacation, chair Daryl Novak said.

“Cathy has a right to free speech. Her right to free speech needs to be protected. That’s not the issue,” he said in an interview.

“There was never for a split second any issue about Cathy’s rights to free speech as an individual. However, our rights to free speech get curtailed somewhat when we associate ourselves with an organization.”

You are free to say what you want, but if you say it out loud you must be willing to accept the consequences, and those will be the elimination of your livelihood and ostracism from your profession. 

What did she say that was a fireable offense? Was it a racist rant? A call for armed revolution?

Perhaps it was calling for the elimination of the State of Israel because it is a settler colonialist regime?

No. She thinks libraries should have viewpoint diversity. 

The American Library Association reported book ban requests in 2023 were the highest on record and we also see them on the rise in Canada. But what often goes unreported in both countries is another type of censorship happening behind the scenes in libraries.

This hidden library censorship takes two forms: the vigorous defence of books promoting diversity of identity, but little to no defence of books promoting diversity of viewpoint, and the purchase of books promoting “progressive” ideas over “traditional” ideas.

Librarians are quick to defend books written by authors from “oppressed” groups and books that promote critical social justice. Library shelves are filled with titles offering positive takes on topics like systemic racism, transgender ideology, equity and decolonization.

This would be fine except books offering other points of view on these topics are rarely defended or even purchased.   As a result, library collections are increasingly biased and offer one viewpoint justified by the claim the other viewpoints are “harmful” and must be excluded.

She was saying the quiet part out loud: librarians curate their collections, and the method they use to do so is ideologically biases. This practice should stop. 

Shocking. Truly shocking stuff. 

As library professionals, we ask our colleagues to recognize their biases and recommit to striving for library neutrality and viewpoint diversity in collections.

We ask our colleagues to ensure “Freedom to Read Week” does not become “Freedom to Read What We Decide You Should Read Week.”

We will only be truly free to read when authors are no longer afraid to write on any topic, publishers no longer prioritize an author’s identity over their work’s merit, teachers no longer present students with only one viewpoint on issues, and library workers ensure their collections are balanced to include a variety of perspectives on controversial topics.

She wrote this piece to be published during “Freedom to Read” week, apparently not understanding that Slavery is Freedom. 

We really shouldn’t be shocked, given that the American Library Association’s president is a “proud Marxist” who believes that libraries should be sites for socialist organizing. It would of course be “harmful” to have a book written by Abigail Shrier or Thomas Sowell among the titles available. 

The whole library might burst out in flames. 

Cathy Simpson’s ultimate sin was praising the free speech organization FAIR, which is in the forefront of the rights to free speech. Somebody had to step up for that mission once the ACLU decided that censorship was a great idea after all. FAIR is often accused of being conservative, but that isn’t really correct. It often defends conservatives because they are among the most censored these days, but the organization has stepped up to defend liberals often enough. 

The library board did try to reeducate Simpson, as is the Leftist way. If she recanted she could keep her job. But alas, she asserted her right to freedom of thought. 

Freedom of thought is anathema to librarians these days. 

A number of meetings were held with her over the past few weeks to discuss ways to deal with the fallout from the column, including an in camera session after the regular monthly meeting on March 13, Novak said.

Last week she was asked to come up with a plan to “rebuild and build the confidence of the board and the confidence of the staff and move forward,” but Simpson’s strategy was rejected by the board, he said.

After being unable to come to agreement on how to proceed, he said the board met again last Friday and voted unanimously to fire Simpson.

“Essentially, we realized that the relationship was broken and not fixable,” he said.

The decision was delivered on Tuesday morning in a short meeting with Novak, vice-chair Wayne Scott and an outside human resources consultant.

The library received legal advice and consulted with the Town of NOTL’s human resources department prior to firing her, Novak said.

As part of their due diligence, board members also researched FAIR “and we all came to the same conclusion,” he said.

Canada is in the midst of a war to crush free speech. A hate speech law with severe penalties for wrongthink–jail time for years or decades–is one of Trudeau’s signature policies. 

Whether Canadians will continue to tolerate this jihad is an open question. Trudeau is very unpopular, and Pierre Poilievre, his Conservative opponent, is a strong advocate of free speech. Poilievre is likely to win the next election when it comes. 

But as in the US, the culture war will continue to rage, and the Left will likely continue to push this insanity.