I attended three panels at the MLA Conference.

The first panel that I attended was “Transforming the 200s: Updating Dewey Classification Arrangement for Religious Studies.” It was presented by a group of library professionals from the Dakota County Library System who spoke of their recent undertaking of updating their library materials in the 200s section with a new arrangement and call numbers to better represent the diversity of religious traditions and writings thereof. I was actually surprised to hear that there already exist alternate number classifications for certain subjects created by the Dewey Decimal Classification organization itself. This is rather relieving as it becomes more apparent that the original organization of the DDC is often Eurocentric and does not reflect evolving understanding of certain subjects and in this way can sometimes let library patrons down.

The Dakota County Library system sought out this new classification as the original organization of the 200s allotted a steep majority of its number categories to topics of Christianity, and squeezed most other world religions and topics into mixed categories left over. Even with a Christian majority in the local population this did not represent the proportionality of various religions in the local population the that this library serves. The new distribution of call numbers allots its 100 digits geographically, from East to West and then chronologically from there. This distribution is a decent effort to divvy the call numbers in a more neutral and equilateral fashion. The panel presenters discussed the steps they took to realize this project and how they organize the labor for the undertaking, from mobilizing the books to mobile relabeling work stations, to communicating with the public what was going on. They relayed that they were somewhat anxiously anticipating negative public feedback, or that the public might overzealously accuse them of religious censorship (though very few books were withdrawn in this process, and mostly due to wear and tear,) but the presenters said that feedback from the public was almost nil. They fielded curiosity about the project but pretty much no one had anything to say about it one way or another. This was an empowering talk that demonstrated the feasibility of what at first looks like a very intimidating undertaking but which demonstrates how libraries must evolve to best serve their communities.

I also attended “Behind the Decline: Quiet Censorship at Work.” Attempts to censor library materials throughout the US have spiked since 2020. however, according to ALA statistics this past year the rate of censorship attempts dropped slightly. It is hypothesized that this does not indicate desisting censorship fervor, but rather both that as censorship legislation takes effect there are sometimes no more “controversial” books left in a library to report, or that teachers and library professionals may be giving in to “Quiet Censorship.” Quiet censorship is when library professionals pull their own punches, per se, and modify their own book purchasing or promotional habits in order to not draw the ire of the book challenge crowd. The hosts of this panel were empathetic to the reasons a library professional might feel they had to do such a thing, from political and institutional pressure to personal anxieties. But they also went over the consequences of quiet censorship, its impact on marginalized communities who are already facing increased harassment and erasure from other sources, and how it erodes the purpose of the library as a place for all and perpetuates inequality. The hosts discussed several concrete strategies to help empower librarians to keep selecting and highlighting books that represent intellectual freedom and diversity in spite of backlash. These included shoring up your libraries collection policies, weeding guidelines and challenge processes, so that there will always been clear policies backing up your actions in the face of challenge. They also suggested to foster communities of allies, both within a professional network, but also groups of local community members who will champion your dedication to diversity such as parent groups and local boards. It was a well structured presentation with excellent information.

Lastly I attended “How Do We Demonstrate the Value and Impact of the Library.” The root cause for the need for such a panel is a steadily increasing public environment of skepticism and sometimes outright hostility towards the function of public libraries resulting in shrinking budgets for libraries. The room was packed, which was packed, which caused the speaker to reflect, “Something about this topic spoke to a lot of you, it seems.” She discussed ways to gather and display data, both quantitative and qualitative, that will demonstrate both to taxpayers and to budget committees the importance of libraries. She showed us where to find statistics about the return on investment of libraries, which top charts as the institutions that generate the most economic payback for every dollar invested. She mentioned various other studies, ones that demonstrate that the availability of libraries contributes to increased feelings of wellbeing for citizens, and that library use correlates with better performance in school for students. She also encouraged us to invite community members to provide testimonials in their own words about what value libraries provide for their lives and to keep these testimonials to deploy to relevant budgetary committees or policymakers.

I was glad for the opportunity given to me to attend this years MLA conference. I made connections with many other library professionals and engaged with topics that will help me grow as a library professional myself.