Censorship has its place in the modern library. It may not be an easy phrase initially to write, but on a practical level, when considering specific examples from a school context, some censorship is required.
Abiding by legal mandates is the most straight forward; ratings of material, and copyright violations demonstrate the basics of proactive and positive censorship in a collection designed for young people. However, other areas of censorship are not as clear cut. Contentious censorship has pitfalls for those who want to restrict access to information and ideas such as fake news/alternative facts which are relatively new terms, but are demonstrated through Climate Change deniers and Holocaust deniers within the texts they produce. Controversial topics lead to heated debate and opinion which can make waves between the teacher librarian and the public, as well as withing the school where differences may arise with administrators.
Dawkins highlights disparities between administrators and teacher librarians within the context of adding material with controversial issues (2018). This differing opinion has wider consequences, and may be caused by a dysfunction within the school context. Why might it be happening? If the school has no clearly defined policy on collection development there is likely not going to be a consistency in what is deemed appropriate materials, as this would mean ideas are hidden and only surface when an issue arises such as a complaint. Lack of communication and forethought can create issues for the school, the teacher librarian and students. 37.5% of early career teacher librarians in Dawkin’s study indicated they felt their job might be on the line if they added controversial material to a collection (p. 10, 2018).
SLJ Staff identify through collating feedback from librarians across the USA the multitude of challenges that are faced in censorship which range from external stakeholders including parents, community members and boards which govern local educational decisions (2016, September 26). These are seen to have personal opinions on what is acceptable within a collection and pressure teacher librarians with individualised views. Internal stakeholders act in similar ways with comments suggesting that pressure comes from administrators (principals) to remove items – this was noted without reference to a process or policy, but rather merely a complaint.
Dawkins, A.M. (2018). The decision by school librarians to self-censor: The impact of perceived administrative discomfort. Teacher Librarian, 45(3),8-12
SLJ Staff. (2016, September 26). SLJ controversial books survey responses: Weighing subject matter. School Library Journal.
