Librarians and curators are increasingly taking it upon themselves to try to protect readers from the supposed threat posed by “problematic” books, says Frank Furedi in Spiked. Here’s an excerpt.
The latest case of censorious librarians comes from the Cambridge University Library, which is one of Britain’s six legal-deposit libraries. Since 1662, readers have had the right to request and receive a copy of everything that has been published in the U.K. However, this culture of open research seems unlikely to survive our identitarian era.
The Telegraph reported earlier this month that Cambridge University Library sent a memo to the librarians in Cambridge’s 31 colleges, telling them: “We would like to hear from colleagues across Cambridge about any books you have had flagged to you as problematic (for any reason, not just in connection with decolonisation issues), so that we can compile a list of examples on the Cambridge Librarians intranet and think the problem through in more detail on the basis of that list.”
The word ‘problematic’ is a self-conscious euphemism, which in this case refers to books that are deemed objectionable and offensive. The library memo explicitly mentions ‘decolonisation’ – the movement calling for fewer texts by white, Western and European authors to appear on university reading lists – but we can assume that a text would be deemed ‘problematic’ if it offends woke sensibilities for any reason.
The memo also called on Cambridge colleges to inform the main university library of “anything you are already doing in your library to address this or similar issues” to be sent to a special “decolonisation” email address. One of these libraries, that of Pembroke College, immediately complied and emailed staff promising that it was “working to better support readers”. The implication here is that readers (university students, no less) are unlikely to be able to cope with the threat posed by problematic texts.
It should go without saying that it is not a library’s job to designate which books in its collection are problematic. Academics and their students ought to have the moral and intellectual maturity to deal with the content of the books they read.
Responding to the Telegraph report, a Cambridge University Library spokesman insisted that this is not a form of censorship. “Cambridge University Libraries do not censor, blacklist or remove content unless the content is illegal under U.K. law”, he said. Instead, Cambridge says that its aim is to create a kind of catalogue of problematic texts, with the goal of drawing up materials to help “support” readers who might be affected by them. So formally speaking, this is not censorship. Arguably though, it represents something even worse than that – it is an attempt to control how readers react to texts.
It suggests that librarians have started to behave like therapists, obsessed with micromanaging the thoughts and feelings of readers. Many have tried their utmost to present the collections for which they are responsible as a risk to the general public’s wellbeing.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
We were having a discussion the other day here about whether Israel or that situation or China or the demographics of the planet especially Africa posed the greater threat to our civilisation. But really, it matters little while supposedly premier institutions like Cambridge stick the knife into us from within.
I will second that tof.
People who produce that kind of stuff make me want to spit because they have great privilege and are abusing it, at our expense. Despicable. The country we have made them rich and “respected” but that respect is not reciprocated. Sinister, patronizing snobs.
Quite so. And it is much, much more than mere censorship, now. It is the active denigration of anything ethnically European, which, very much in the spirit of anti-Semitism, blames “whites” for all human ills. Worse still, it presents as “colonisation” the habitation and natural dominance within Europe of Europeans, rather suggesting the flat lie: that others were once the majority at some unspecified date; or that we are some kind of inhuman bacillus which has no right to live anywhere, let alone make claims to being an indigenous people.
Woke is nothing but Red N@zism; and whites are its scapegoats. From unreasoning, illogical, perverted ideologies like those currently promoted at Cambridge spring genocide and nothing less. This will be dismissed as exaggerated – but were any of Powell’s predictions mistaken? Did he not calculate the numbers? Did he not point out the cultural effects of mass immigration? Did he not make it crystal clear that these cultural difficulties would be used by the left to advance sectarian claims? Well, then: the next dark steps down the stairwell should be looked at unflinchingly. And they are leading to Hell.
Wokery is like one of those flesh eating disorders, where the organism eats itself. The shark and the hyena are less of a threat then itself.
Here we go again – who defines “problematic?”
A problematic read for me could be any number of things but to give just one example and I have made this point previously on DS, articles that are heavy on graphs, charts and statistics are hard work, for me. Basically I lack the patience. Numbers tend to bore me and graphs remind me of maps. I am useless at map reading.
It is not that I cannot fathom these articles, I simply cannot be bothered. Of course suggesting that such articles should be banned because they “bother” me is nonsense.
Shakespeare will be “problematic” for many dealing as he does with the whole gamut of the human condition. Wilfred Owen – too much raw blood and guts. The Metaphysical Poets – far too philosophical, romantic, whimsical, indulgent for modern sensibilities.
Of course I could go on.
Anybody whose words are committed to print will at some point be at risk of upsetting someone, somewhere and it will always be thus. So where does “problematic” start and end?
I doubt a day goes by, particularly nowadays when I don’t come across an article that I find “problematic” in some way or other. Currently the Israel / Gaza situation often presents “difficult” articles but the bottom line is that I make the choice to read or not. And if I stumble into an article I find unpleasant I can always close the page.
Overt censorship cannot and will not work. Any such imposition will result in a flourishing samizdst industry regardless of any threats or sanctions.
The very talk of flagging “problematic” literature is horrifically Stalinist in its intent and proves beyond doubt that those working in our educational / cultural institutions to impose such measures should have their employment terminated immediately and with extreme prejudice.
Yes, articles such as this are “problematic” – they make my pho# kin’ blood boil.
I think you’ll find problematic defined in a dictionary. Presumably Cambridge library will have a good selection of dictionaries to choose from.
P.S. I have problems with dictionaries re-defining technical terms and setting them as their primary definition. e.g. exponential.
Yep ———-“Problematic”. “Hate Crime” “Climate Denier” etc etc. ———-All with the intention of outlawing anything out with particular narratives that seek to impose will on others. ———Tyranny.
What is ‘problematic’ for these ‘censors’, is it is the older, white, middle class demographic that visit the museums, galleries, talks, theatres, historic houses etc and the ones who are most likely to react to the woke nonsense.
Once your target market disappears so will their jobs and some of them are too dim to see it.
Let me get my old Volume of Mark Twain books out. Oh which one will I choose to read with the recliner up and hot cup of cocoa?———- Maybe “Life on the Mississippi” or “Huckleberry Fin”, or “Puddenhead Wilson”.——————But wait maybe I will see the N word. Oh dear isn’t life so hard these days?
Alas Furedi’s article shows that my own alma mater, Pembroke, is at the forefront of the response to the U.L.s rallying call. My own full response, as a member both of Pembroke and the U.L., here.