Why trigger warnings for books are infantilising and silly

Time was when the most dangerous hazard in an academic library was the arsenic used in Victorian cloth bindings. As Cambridge university audits its shelves for titles that might be ‘harmful’, Oxford professor Kathryn Sutherland wonders: who gets to decide what’s poisonous and what’s not?

Libraries should be ‘a space for nuanced thinking about shades of meaning’ (Rex)

Bad ideas sometimes come from good places, but sometimes the place too is bad. What are we to make of the memo reportedly sent to Cambridge academics by the University Library, asking them for titles of books that might be considered “harmful/offensive” and not just “in connection with decolonisation issues”?

The stated intention is to compile a list to help librarians “obliged to work with such materials” and to enable them to “better support readers”. The wording is solicitous, the unseen dangers lying in wait for both librarians and readers can be controlled, it is implied, with due diligence.

Who would have thought that librarianship entailed such risk? Here’s a telling little aside. In 2019, the Poison Book Project was set up to address the “hidden hazard” in library collections: specifically, arsenic in Victorian cloth bindings. The International Institute for Conservation recommends staff handling such books to wear nitrile gloves and to wash their hands.