Nobody’s advocating for censorship, here, but we can and should be watchdogs for the principle that having access to good information is central to people’s ability to make good decisions for themselves and for their communities.

In some Supreme Court first amendment cases, the idea of “content discrimination” comes up (see R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, for example). The Supremes don’t say “we couldn’t possibly hold an opinion on the value of free speech” but they do say “the state will not make laws that prohibit speech based on its content” (aside from things like some forms of commercial speech, obscene speech, fighting words…)

Librarians, it seems to me, make a similar distinction. Access to good information on all topics representing a wide range of views is not something on which we are neutral, and it seems to me that in an age when so many of our information production systems are in crisis (see what’s going on in the news business) we ought to be watchdogs for the public good. Not people who say “that’s not our job because we’re not allowed to hold opinions, because someone else might disagree with us and we’re neutral.”

These are professional concerns.

True, we can use the power of the pocketbook to make access to shoddy sources more difficult, but surely we cannot censor information even if we believe it to be wrong or inaccurate.

For example, if society deems polygamy to be not in the public interest, should librarians be responsible for pointing out the injurious nature of Mormon texts?

Librarians are educators, yes. But being a watchdog should be on one’s nonprofessional, personal time.