The idea of a neutral library and a neutral librarian is appealing. Without influencing or judging, the librarian trusts the citizens own judgement and steps away from her own opinion in order to serve and guide the users. The notion of neutrality as an ideal has been the dominating position among both librarians and Library and Information Science-researchers.

Advocates for the principle of neutrality claim that the idea of neutrality is both an expression of representative democracy and respect for the individual’s rights and that neutrality is an active choice (Blomgreen & Sundeen, 2020; Tewell, 2018). One can argue, that it is by adhering to this principle, the library has gained its credibility and trustworthiness. Other parts of LIS-research have questioned the idea of neutrality; in the representation of materials on the shelves, in the categorization and the role of the librarian (Drabinski 2013, Mathiesen & Fallis 2008, Iversen 2008). According to this more activistic part of the LIS-field, insistence of neutrality contributes to reproduction of oppressive structures that historically has been dominating society, they claim that it is necessary to reject the idea of neutrality to serve the whole community.

In my masters thesis (Bollerup, 2021), I conclude that the question of neutrality should not be treated as binary. Both advocates for a neutral approach and an activistic approach justify their work from the same core value: a library and a librarian should serve all citizens and the whole community. Climate, racism, sexism, inequality etc. should not be seen as controversial political topics, but as common human responsibilities, also for the library and the librarian. Instead of making the principle of neutrality a choice – to be or not to be neutral – let us ask: What values do we want our library to reflect? Maybe it is not neutrality as a value but democratic values such as social justice, equity and solidarity.