I’ve been reading about censorship recently, and the impact that censorship can have when developing a school library collection. In doing so, I’ve found it useful to keep in mind a definition of what censorship is, and I quite like this one: “Censorship encompasses those actions which significantly restrict free access to information.” (Moody, 2005, p. 139). When considering free access to information, it’s clear that professional standards indicate that censorship in libraries should be opposed. The International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) guidelines state:

“Access to services and collections should be based on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms, and should not be subject to any form of ideological, political, or religious censorship, or to commercial pressures.” (IFLA, 2015, p. 60).

 

Similarly, the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) state:

“Freedom can be protected in a democratic society only if individuals have unrestricted access to information and ideas” (ALIA, 2015, para. 3).

However, Moody (2005) identifies that the collection development process is impacted by the limitations of library budget. Choices about what to leave out of a collection need to be made. Which essentially equates to censoring, or restricting the access of information, simply because libraries aren’t in a position to afford giving access to every information resource that is available in the published world (p. 140).

 

There are a number of sources of censorship, but the ones that stand out to me, as far as school libraries are concerned are vendor and publisher bias, self-censorship and ‘community standards’ (Moody, 2005, p. 145). Vendor and publisher bias has to do with the selection aids and publications, such as review journals, that are used by teacher librarians (TLs) to develop collections. These materials can be inherently biased, promoting and pushing the interests of big publishing houses over smaller, independent, and alternative publishers which often provide access to non-mainstream or controversial topics (Moody, 2005, p. 140). The bigger, and more interesting source of censorship that I hadn’t previously considered is the issue of self-censorship and community standards.

 

Interestingly, and a bit scarily, many people who would censor or restrict access to materials are the librarians, teachers, and administrators themselves (Jenkins, 2002). Moody (2005) suggests this to possibly be the most insidious form of censorship. Likely because of the professional standards of librarians in being fundamentally opposed to such practices. But not being aware of personal values, prejudices, and biases, may lead to subconscious censorship when engaging in collection development practices.

“Undoubtedly, the most difficult form of censorship to detect is that of our own and others’ self-censorship…and this silent censorship easily, and, I suspect, usually, occurs during the process of selection.” (Jenkins, 2002, para. 8)

 

Also, TLs may censor material in their collection based on perceived ‘community standards’ which minimise or remove completely, any offensive material (Moody, 2005, p. 142). Community standards censors often don’t take into consideration the context of the material they are challenging (Jenkins, 2002). Jenkins goes on to warn those who are involved in the selection process about evaluating resources “with an eye to identifying the presence of any content which might violate those self-interpreted community standards” (para. 9). The presence of potentially offensive words, themes, or scenarios taken outside of their intended context, meaning, or message could possibly deny library patrons access to meaningful and useful resources. This can lead to unfounded and frivolous challenges to library resources and calls for material to be removed from a school library collection.

 

There seems to be a balancing act between wanting to uphold the professional standards for libraries, mitigating conscious, or subconscious, self-censorship, and adherence to community standards. I think this is were a well-developed and current collection development policy may come in handy. A policy that addresses censorship and challenged materials is essential (Braxton, 2022, para. 114). This is supported in the IFLA guidelines, stating that a collection development policy should:

“…establish the method for reconsideration of resources consistent that is with the principles of intellectual freedom and of children’s right to know. The policy should also identify the responsibility of school librarians for resisting efforts to censor materials, no matter the source of calls for limiting resources or access to resources.” (IFLA, 2015, p. 34).

 

Censorship is clearly a big issue in libraries, not just school libraries. It’s a lot more complex than I had initially thought. Upholding professional standards whilst championing freedom of information is important, but TLs also need to be aware of other factors that relate to censorship. They need to strike a balance between professional and community standards. They need to be aware of self-censorship when selecting resources, and they need to be discerning of the resources that are chosen for inclusion or exclusion based on cost or library budget, prioritising what the library users/community requires. By addressing these censorship issues within a policy document, TLs are better placed to deal with the complex issue of censorship in their libraries.

 

References

 

Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). (2015). Free access to information statement. https://read.alia.org.au/alia-free-access-information-statement

 

Braxton, B. (2022, January 26). Sample collection policy. 500 Hats. https://500hats.edublogs.org/policies/sample-collection-policy/

 

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). (2015). IFLA School Library Guidelines, 2nd revised edition. Resources. https://www.ifla.org/resources/?oPubId=9512

 

Jenkinson, D. (2002). Selection and censorship: It’s simple arithmetic. School libraries in Canada, 2(4), 22.

 

Moody, K. (2005). Covert censorship in libraries: a discussion paper. The Australian Library Journal, 54(2), 138-147.