This "informal glimpse" is not about proselytization. It is about how those in my profession, librarians, their parent organization the American Library Association (ALA) and the editors of Library Journal, consider books dealing with polemical subjects and why I believe bias, deliberate or otherwise, is a part of this process. Keep in mind, I'm writing as a librarian, not an apologist.

Intelligent Design, is defined within the subject headings of the Library of Congress (LCSH) as:

works on the theory that there are elements of design in the natural world, especially the biological world, that indicate its creation by an intelligent agent.

Though I've long suspected this subject outside the pale of legitimacy by many of my colleagues, Walter Cressler's "An Evolving Collection" (Library Journal 9/1/2006) gets full credit for substantiating my hunch and providing the impetus to take a look-see. With an annotated bibliography and advice on collection strategies, Cressler's Even anti-evolution evolves section ends with:

The purchase of materials that represent the uncompromising fringes of any conflict in society requires a clear collection policy. For example, we may be obligated to our patrons to make available works that embody ideas fundamental to significant cultural undercurrents such as "intelligent design" but not to burden budgets and minds with every other form of pseudoscience. [emphasis mine]

And here we have Intelligent Design carefully wrapped as fringe and pseudoscience, worthy of a token purchase but nothing more. No help even from the likes of an Anthony Flew who, having devoted a lifetime serving as a humanist poster boy, arrived after 81 years to the epiphany that, "The argument for intelligent design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it." (Christian Century 1/11/2006)

Would it help to remind Mr. Cressler and others in our profession of subjects once labeled as "pseudoscience"? Continental Drift, Cloning, Osteopathy, String Theory, Cold Fusion, Cosmology, Electromagnetism, Meteors, Big Bang Theory, Black Holes, all presumably at some earlier time not worthy of collecting in a balanced fashion. But we've been told these "wedge" writers are all 3C, Christian Crackpot Creationists. I'll leave my colleagues to investigate the scientific credentials of these purveyors of junk science like Jonathan Wells, William Dembski and Michael Behe.

A note on methodology. Using WorldCat and Baker & Taylor's Title Source III, I set out to identify every book, paperback or hardbound, having a Library of Congress subject heading/descriptor (LCSH) of Intelligent Design published from 2000 through September 2006. As with my previous look into collection bias in 223:1 there was no particular reason for beginning with the year 2000. The sample given here should be large enough to establish a pattern with the relatively new subject of Intelligent Design.

It is important to note that I deliberately used sources with authority control like WorldCat and Title Source III, rather than Amazon, et al., to prevent a skewed sample using keyword searching. Call me old fashioned but that is just the librarian in me. I want to stress the importance of using Intelligent Design as a subject heading with my sample. This is not about comparing evolution or Darwinism with Intelligent Design. Many books dealing with evolutionary theory make no mention of Intelligent Design. That said, any library purchasing a book critical of Intelligent Design has, by Mr. Cressler's definition, already engaged in a pseudoscience purchase. Should we then not expect a balance of viewpoints within this "fringe" subject?

My research found a total of 68 books. I divided this group into three sections; "Balanced", "Not-Favorable", and "Favorable". Balanced being those books presenting both sides of Intelligent Design, Not-Favorable discrediting Intelligent Design and Favorable supporting the theory. Some may take issue with my designations however I feel reasonably confident that each book has been properly placed.

Librarians rely heavily upon review sources in collection development. The sheer volume of published material necessitates resources such as these to survey the market and gain insights into how other librarians evaluate the merit of books. Two review resources under the auspices of the American Library Association, Booklist and Choice and Reed Business Information's Library Journal enjoy particular universal popularity among librarians, myself included.

It stands to reason that books reviewed in these three sources will have an advantage for being purchased by librarians in comparison with those passed over. Keep in mind, for the purposes of this research, I am not interested in whether the reviewer recommended the book or otherwise. As a former reviewer for one of these publications, it is important to understand that as a rule the editorial policies of these publications give full discretion to the reviewer. If the reviewer doesn't like the book, fine. My accusation of bias occurs at the editorial level whereby books are selected for review. It is here I believe a book supporting a subject like Intelligent Design is given short shrift by an ALA not particular interested in anything crimping their secular worldview.

Of the 21 books critical of Intelligent Design it is interesting to discover that 15 were chosen for review in at least one of the three ALA review publications. In other words, nearly 72% of all books written since 2000 debunking Intelligent Design were selected for review.

Applying this data to titles sympathetic to Intelligent Design, one would expect a value in near proximity to that of the former group. Hardly. Only 6 of the 39 titles published in this time frame were reviewed. A paltry 15%. But one may take issue with comparing different sample sizes. Considering only the top 21 Favorable titles, the percentage reviewed is still only 29%, not even half of those Not Favorable titles reviewed.

The connection between reviewed and holdings is clearly discerned in the next table. I'll take the liberty to assume many colleagues would concur WorldCat serves as the best tool available for determining library holdings on a national level. For the non-library aficionado, think of WorldCat as an online catalog for many libraries throughout the world. For my research here, it is scoped to libraries in the United States only.

Looking at the following table we see something that shouldn't surprise us having just established ALA's systematic dismissal of titles supporting Intelligent Design.

The average number of libraries holding a Not Favorable title is nearly triple than that of libraries having a book supporting Intelligent Design. For nearly every 3 libraries holding a title pooh-poohing Intelligent Design, your patrons will find only 1 library with the temerity to rebut those who find nothing intelligent about Intelligent Design. Availability is certainly no reason for this disparity, pro Intelligent Design books have enjoyed a near 2:1 publication advantage to their counterpart since 2000.

Thus we have an example here of what I contend is not fluke or fantasy, but systematic bias. Many still fail to recognize, perhaps admit a better word, that our profession is not immune to prejudice and has its own agenda to, dare I suggest, censor views unpopular to the movers and shakers that are ALA. Make no mistake, there is a link between reviewed books and holdings. Terms such as "fringe", "burden" and "pseudoscience", are codespeak for censorship. And be sure the American Library Association has little interest in its core mission to promote and protect true diversity of ideas within its member libraries when their agenda is not supported. At least Walter Cressler had the courage to say it.