At this point, Bitch can’t offer a reasonable explanation because there is none. They made a series of big mistakes.
Any explanation just underscores the mistakes.

What a PR nightmare. I predict that this will be taught in library schools as what not to do.

And, while it isn’t appropriate to say that Bitch censored books, they did in fact self-censor their list.

And, it seems absurd to suggest a book discussion at this point. People were discussing the books but they in essence ended the discussion by taking the books of the list. I don’t have any respect for the magazine which makes me sad because I really liked the idea of their list.

Not to rehash what I wrote, but what I find perplexing is that an explanation of how much research went into creating the list when the books were very casually removed. I say very casually because there wasn’t much of a fight or defense put up for it. If there was research, there would be justification, an acknowledgement that ‘yes, we know this book is difficult because X issue, and we decided to include it’. Instead, it just looks sloppy. While one could say that the new information on Book Smugglers was not previously uncovered, it just makes the list creation process look haphazard. Also, it’s hard to say that it isn’t canon when the description touts it as such.

In my personal opinion, Bitch really should have defended the list as it first appeared. By removing titles, Bitch has opened everything on the list to similar scrutiny. It makes the process of list making suspect, it makes future lists start out already under suspicion, and, well, it just looks bad unless there is an overwhelming and compelling case to swap out a book. There might have been an overwhelming and compelling case, but it was never made in a overt manner. Telling me to find the staff postings is not making the case. It weakens the resulting argument of “it’s our list, we can put what we want on it” because it shows that outside influences can get stuff moved onto or off the list.

As a first-year MLS student, I took immediate issue with the cries of censorship, which I’m glad to see being denounced by many people. But that’s the only thing that I can say I feel 100% certain about in this issue. The discussions that resulted from this controversy (regarding comments, the books themselves, the pitfalls of anonymity, review processes, etc.) were fascinating, uncomfortable, and revealing. Exactly what they should have been.

Upon first thought, I agreed that Bitch was not putting forth any kind of canon. However, after some reflection, I realize that that is often what online best-of lists connote in the Web 2.0 world. I’m thrilled that the staff responded to a need for feminist YA literature recommendations, because they’re proving that libraries can often directly respond to the needs of their community. I just hope that in the future Bitch, or any other list-compilers, make the selection process and resulting revisions as transparent as possible so that the literature becomes the focal point, rather than the politics of list-making.

To end this novel of a comment, I hope the last paragraph of your post is what remains long after the controversy of this particular situation has died down.

I think Bitch would have done a lot better if they would have used some common sense going into the list in the first place, if you are going to try to push boundaries (and please do) and educate my children in feminism then talk to educators, those with degrees in library science and other fields and make a list that you can have the balls to back up the first time.