One of the more interesting debates to appear recently on the AUTOCAT discussion list had to do with use of the subdivision -- Controversial literature. Currently SCM:SH includes the instruction (at H 1472): "Use subdivision Controversial literature under religious and philosophical topics for works that argue against or express opposition to a doctrine, belief, practice, school of thought, etc." Some catalogers wondered, however, if this subdivision could be applied in areas other than religion or philosophy. There have been controversial theories about the JFK assassination, for example, and authors who deny that genocide against the Jews took place during World War II. Another writer attempts to "controvert" the US Constitution, because the principles set forth therein are diametrically opposed to the actions of the Framers, who owned slaves and practiced genocide against Native Americans. Yes, these views are controversial, but they fall in areas of history and social sciences, rather than religion or philosophy.

The reactions on AUTOCAT to the idea of expanding the use of -- Controversial literature to situations like these included: support for the need to differentiate unusual or alternative views from the mainstream of thought; opinions on techniques for determining whether or not a particular view is controversial; the problem of the word "controversial" itself perhaps being too value-laden; suggested alternative wordings for a similar subdivision; and ideas for other methods of providing access to these types of material.

Many libraries, archives collections, or Special collections departments do collect or accept "social movement" literature, some of which may be extremist. One cataloger pointed out that headings like Slavery--Justification or Slavery--Proslavery literature might be worthwhile, because the ways in which slavery was defended is a legitimate matter for inquiry. The Kennedy assassination was another good example; a student may try to research for alternative views, and finding such a subdivision would save the student from having to wade through all the other works on this topic. Nevertheless, an intimate understanding of the subject area would be required in order to apply -- Controversial literature effectively. One professor complained that we catalogers often "denigrate our ability to sort the wheat from the chaff, in refusing to judge the quality of the information we catalog."

"But is this the proper place for judgement to be manifested?" asked another subscriber. Librarians do often provide reader's advisory services, but classification and subject cataloging should remain as objective as possible. Users who deal with only the bibliographic record should not have to contend with judgements of a person who cannot be questioned face-to-face. "What judgement?" wrote another commentator. You can apply a simple litmus test; use the subdivision for any work which attacks generally held views, or values, or takes sides in a controversy (slavery, creationism etc.), the common thread being the disputational nature of the work. But changes in views and values occur over time; one person's truth is another person's heresy (look at the Copernican theory, for instance). Another cataloger worried that any such subdivision would be applied with gross inconsistency and would tend to offend library patrons. "If a librarian used [it] for conservative, anti-abortion, anti-communist works, but not for Farrakhan, Oliver Stone-ish and the CIA-invented-AIDS literature, he is asking for trouble." When you move outside of religion, said another practitioner, then the "established" doctrines become muddied; a wider use of this subdivision would lead toward the politicizing of cataloging. Along this same line was the opinion that we should err in withholding the "controversial" label, rather than in applying it.

At least one AUTOCAT member felt that there was a strong tie between the concept of hate speech and "controversial" literature. He argued that hate literature is a category where the lack of adequate subject description can cause actual harm. There was this statement, too: " I 'hope' never to live in a world in which bad scholarship inculcating hatred for any group ceases to be controversial." Many people discounted this point of view, however. 1) Thoughtful disagreement is not hate literature; 2) "Controversial" is intended to convey the argumentative nature, not the nature, of the argument; 3) To be anti-Constitution is not the same as promoting injustice or destruction; it is simply participation in a legitimate debate; 4) "Controversial literature" is not a comment on the veracity or quality of the material, but an indication of the form of the content .., which can be used equally to defend or attack good or evil; and 5) It should not and need not imply a value judgement; it's not an issue of how the cataloger feels about the subject, or about the book, but rather, where the author is coming from.

There was enough discomfort with the term "Controversial;" nevertheless, to invoke these suggestions for alternative subdivision phrases:

--Disagreement
--Disagreement with
--Disputational literature
--Disputational writings
--Dissenting views
--Opposing viewpoints
--Opposing views
--Polemical literature
--Views on

Not to be outdone by the serious nature of this controversy, some subscribers also made the following (facetious) suggestions:

--Crackpot literature
--Irresponsible allegations
--Lies about
--Opinions without substance
--Rumors
--Translations into gibberish
--Unlikely explanations
--Unpopular works

Various alternative proposals were also offered for improving subject access to these materials. One of these concerned the use of specialized LC class numbers for controversial works, where notation in the schedules indicate the "anti-" or "pro-" view, or state the topic as a "problem" or a "reform literature." Another person sought to solve the access problem for "hate literature" by adding a 450 (UF) reference to one's library's subject authority records, resulting in an OPAC display directing patrons from [Topic]--Hate literature to [Topic]--Controversial literature. Another cataloger pointed out that libraries might also choose to use the 655 field, and apply one of the approved terms for literature of prejudice which can be found in the 2nd ed. of ACRL's Genre Terms (1991). These include genres such as Anti-Catholic literature, anti-homosexual literature, Anti-Masonic literature, White supremacist literature, and Xenophobic literature.