News coverage of library programming has traditionally painted libraries as "safe" and "neutral"—but the library field has good reasons not to fully embrace either of these terms. Though the media often focuses on how libraries "offer safe space for everyone," neither safety nor neutrality are easily put into practice. There are instances in which creating "safety" or "neutrality" for some people might actually cause harm, or prevent the kinds of learning libraries are designed to facilitate. To understand how safety and neutrality might be both unobtainable and undesirable in certain circumstances, let's consider these separately.

The concept of safe space has historical roots in minoritized communities' need for spaces free of discrimination or persecution, linking psychological and physical safety. But critics have noted that psychological safety can be confused with comfort—and discomfort is necessary for learning. Librarian Rachel Wexelbaum adds that "safety"remains aspirational for many libraries. To share several of her examples: patrons and staff alike may experience harassment inside the library building; historical discrimination has consequences for present-day representation and cultural competence among library workers; librarians, especially school librarians, often engage in censorship due to pressure from parents and administrators.

Library critics of neutrality similarly note that this is impossible to put into practice. For example, in remarks at 2018 ALA Mid Winter, Emily Drabinski described students seeking help finding references that contradict widely held scientific consensus. To remain neutral in the face of such a request would mean knowingly providing disinformation. More to the point, "neutrality" too often boils down to a slippery both-sidesism that posits that the humanity of certain people is up for debate. In remarks at the same event, Chris Bourg notes thatlibraries must constantly make decisions about what materials to include in their collections. Echoing this, Amelia N. Gibson and colleagues note that "neutrality" simply means adherence to the status quo. ALA itself "acknowledges the role of neutrality rhetoric in emboldening and encouraging white supremacy and fascism."

Within news coverage, the meaning of these terms also depends on the program topic. In a study of 100 news articles, we found consistent patterns. For libraries creating health programming, "safety" and "neutrality" are about removing obstacles to accessing needed services, and about creating stigma-free spaces where patrons know they won't be judged if they ask for help. Meanwhile, for libraries creating programming about race and diversity, "safety" and" neutrality" are much more fraught terms. In some cases, it was unclear whose safety was being prioritized; in other cases, neutrality was used as a smokescreen.

This blog has been co-posted on Programming Librarian and the Knology website.

About this Article

This article is a contribution to our work with the American Library Association's "Libraries Transforming Communities" initiative, which you can read more about here.

Photo by Matthew Feeney on Unsplash