In, “Selection and Censorship: It’s simple arithmetic,” by Dave Jenkinson (2002) selection is viewed as an act of addition- including resources in a collection, and censorship as an act of simple subtraction- removing or refusing resources into a collection. More clearly, Jenkinson points out that a selector seeks the positives in resources as they develop a collection. Censors begin with a set of negatives (“no-no’s”) and taboos and seeks them in resources. This is a simple enough premise, but the matter of great consideration for teacher librarians is whether the censor- the negative force- comes from within our school, and even from within in ourselves in the way of self censorhip. While Jenkinson writes from a Canadian context, the matter is very much relevant to teacher librarians in Australia.
Jenkinson points out that, like in Australian school libraries, responsibility for selection of learning resources rests with the principal and the library personnel- the teacher librarian, for example. Subsequent questioning, or even challenging, of resources should then be addressed by principal and library personnel ideally through first consulting the collection management policy. Individual concerns, worries or fears will rise up and they may not always be anticipated or even seem reasonable as in the case cited by Jenkinson with the parent demanding that The Black Beauty and Satan be removed due to the name of the horse within (the S word).
In his 1991-1993 study of challenges to materials in the province of Manitoba, he notes that 60 percent of challenges came from individual parents, but the rest came from in-school entities- teachers mostly. There might be some temptation to simply yield to internal questions or concerns about materials in the name of workplace harmony, but such yielding without process is neither helpful in maintaining a dynamic and contemporary collection, or adhering to the code of conduct as outlined by ALIA’s statement on professional code of conduct or the ALIA/ASLA policy on school library provision which requires that the school library collection promotes imagination and discussion, growth and a free flow of ideas.
When library personnel begin to fear the censors, those looking for fault or who have quick triggers on particular topics they may be tempted to be cautious; pro-actively cautious. As Krugg (1983) declared, self-censorship to avoid challenge undermines what libraries have done to serve democracy for decades. This is as much a temptation in Australia as it is anywhere where educators, teacher librarians included, have ever growing demands on their time and social media and digital technologies seems to be able to stoke and spread fervour.
A collections policy, made in consultation with various shareholders, aligned with mandates and codes in the profession and educational authories, ratified by the principal and publicly shared is ample grounds for courage and commitment to positivity and growth in the collection.
