Holocaust Denial Literature Twenty Years Later: A Follow-up Investigation of Public Librarians' Attitudes Regarding Acquisition and Access

Curtin, Shane

Drobnicki, J. j. (2014). Holocaust Denial Literature Twenty Years Later: A Follow-up Investigation of Public Librarians' Attitudes Regarding Acquisition and Access. Judaica Librarianship, 1854-87.


Summary:


This meaty article analyzes the results of a 2012 survey given to public librarians regarding the acquisition of Holocaust-revisionism materials in their  libraries, and compares those results to an identical survey done in 1992 (when the issue first took the media by storm). It begins by defining Holocaust denial, then explores the current feeling among librarians regarding the collecting of controversial, historically inaccurate and generally afactual materials. It explores methods to address how to classify such materials in relation to historical sources on the Holocaust. Each survey question and the responses are graphed and analyzed, and the survey itself is included at the end of the article.  


Evaluation:

I find the fact that librarians are still discussing whether or not “offensive” things should be in the collection to be quite tragic. The things that end up in the library without a fuss and the things that cause major controversy are inconsistent. People take issue with the factual inaccuracy of Holocaust-revisionism literature, but there are plenty of other nonfactual texts occupying the nonfiction section of the library- there are books on alien abduction, books by popular mystics and television mediums who have since been discredited (as if there was ever any doubt), books on the most outlandish and outrageous conspiracy theories, and, for that matter, every religious text.
Factual accuracy only becomes a concern for people when the issue is one that is politically charged, or involves ideas that are  considered taboo or offensive to the majority of people.  Some materials are always exempt from the burden of fact: "Accuracy” is never a consideration at all when it comes to materials of theological or philosophical nature, even though believers of each one claim them to be the ultimate truth. Why should historical texts be treated any differently? If history is written by the victors, as the saying goes, it is certain that there are countless unacknowledged lies to be found in the library. Consider how the status of Columbus (for one) has shifted from hero to Villain as more historical facts about his treatment of Native American have come to light. What about literature on the civil war that glosses over the atrocities committed by the north?
A recent dispute occurred at my library when  a patron request was refused for a book denying climate change. The professional reviews of the book were not favorable, and it appears the author deliberately ignored or twisted existing facts to suit his agenda. We ended up NOT purchasing that book, but I think we should have. Or at least, I think we should have some materials in our collection that take that side of the debate.
The facts speak for themselves, and no neutral inquirer of sound mind, when confronted with the facts, will choose to deny the occurrence of the Holocaust. And no one who isn’t of sound mind can be swayed anyway. Some wise librarians, quoted in the article, explained how critical thinking is fostered by the consideration of contrary views. Obviously.
To get back to Holocaust denial- it is a phenomenon of cultural and historical significance, and should be acknowledged as such. Regardless of how we “feel” about such things, we must make them available, to some extent, in our libraries. This is not the 19th century- we are not here to mold peoples' minds. We are guides, human bridges to information, and that is all. When it comes to collections, our own morality has no rightful place.
It is our duty (especially in a world where half the facts are probably wrong anyway) to represent all point of view. Since the body of literature on the Holocaust doubtlessly far exceeds the body of literature denying the holocaust, there is no danger, as one quote used in the article suggested, “that such fallacies may ultimately lead to the persecution and oppression of minorities once again”. That notion is the embodiment of ignorance. Evil cannot be suppressed by censoring ideas: in fact, the censorship of ideas IS the greatest evil.
Frankly I’m a appalled by the level of censorship supporters I see amongst a profession whose members are supposed to the guardians of intellectual freedom. I is unethical (and immoral) for librarians to deny Holocaust-denail a place in their stacks.