Activity:
Find, read and analyse a peer-reviewed journal article in relation to censorship.
The topic “tensions between access and censorship” attracts my attention. I previously believed that librarians need to perform the censorship in children’s services, so I expected to find a way to solve the tension. However, this article provides me a great reminder that I may impose my values in children’s services which may become obstacles to their development.
Journal article:
Rumberger, A. (2019). The elementary school library: Tensions between access and censorship. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 20(4), 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949119888491
Reflection:
- What did I learn?
To be honest, I never thought the censorship in children’s books can be a disadvantage activity. This journal article invokes me to reflect my previous opinion in how to instruct children when they choose reading materials. Just as many other parents, I regarded the censorship as a compulsory progress in protecting my children from learning dirty languages and misbehaviours. I also agreed the primary schools to evaluate my kids’ reading levels and then supply the reading materials accordingly. However, this article demonstrates that certain regulation in school libraries, such as labelling levels on books, could narrow down the range of children’s selection (Rumberger, 2019, p. 416). Although school librarians intend to provide proper instructions to improve children’s reading level, they may end up with redirecting the children to read what they are not interested in. As a result, children may lose their opportunities to access diverse information and then become a “passive recipient of ‘safe’ information” (Rumberger, 2019, p. 417). That means, librarians’ personal objectives may enforce the children to choose what they expect them to read.
- Professional reflection
This article inspires me to reflect what roles should an information professional play in censoring children’s books. Thus, I researched some relevant regulations so as to find out how to balance the tension between protection and obstruction. According to Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA, 2015), information professionals “are expected to encourage the free flow of information and ideas within the scope of their roles and responsibilities”. That means, librarians have the responsibility to assure children’s freedom in accessing information without influence of any personal bias. They should not instruct a student to choose a material based on their own preferences or perceptions. In addition, this kind of freedom should be under legal instruction. National Classification Scheme (NCS) contains a clear interpretation of the classification code for different types of resources, such as physical publications, film and games (Australian Government, 2022). Information professionals need to provide resources in compile with the NCS.
- To think further
It is true that this world is turning digital and full of various information, including misinformation, disinformation, sexual resources and violence. Many websites do not mark their contents with the classification code. In this case, the easiest method is to limit children’s access to the outside world. However, it is not the best way. Just as Rumberger (2019) advocates, children need to equip with critical thinking skills so that they are able evaluate and digest “difficult knowledge” (p. 419). Especially when the kids have already encountered the complex information, librarians cannot simply cover their eyes and instruct them to read something else. Instead, they can explore the issue together with them from different perceptions, searching extra resources to analyse and understand it further.
In conclusion, this article reminds me not to use personal preference to cover professional position. Free access is important for a healthy childhood. In this digital world, children may inevitably confront complex or even inappropriate information. Thus, the best way is to teach them information literacy and critical thinking skill so that they are able to use proper method to evaluate resources and avoid going astray.
References:
Australian Government. (2022). National Classification Scheme. https://www.classification.gov.au/about-us/legislation
Australian Library and Information Association. (2015). Statement on free access to information. https://read.alia.org.au/alia-free-access-information-statement
Rumberger, A. (2019). The elementary school library: Tensions between access and censorship. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 20(4), 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949119888491
I’m glad that someone else shares my view:)
I’ve read another article on self-censorship written by Ann Baillie in 2017 which conveyed a similar message: censorship should not be justified as “children protection”. Indeed, children and youngsters can assess to complex materials easily on the Internet with their pocket devices. Censoring to me is nothing but an ostrich policy avoiding to face the complexity of the world.
Things get more complicated in Asian context. Under the authoritarian parenting style in Asian societies, parents often expect librarians to censor sensitive materials for their children. Parents and legal guardians do reserve the right and responsibility to guide their children to choose reading materials (Magi & Garnar, 2021). If they authorise librarians to choose “proper” materials for their children, does it count censorship?
In my view, judging the quality of reading materials is really not the job of a librarian. As an information professional, we “uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources” (American Library Association (ALA), 2021). What’s more, censorship is basically an act of arrogance that some people think they are better at telling good from bad, right from wrong; “it is for your own good” is always the best excuse for being arrogant.
References
ALA. (2021, July 21). Professional ethics. https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics
Baillie, A. M. (2017). Protection versus first amendment violation: Self-Censorship as it relates to youth and young adult services. SLIS Connecting, 6(2), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.18785/slis.0602.06
Magi, T., & Garnar, M. (2021). Intellectual freedom manual (Tenth ed.). ALA Editions.
Totally agreed!